| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust 14:10 - Nov 8 with 5477 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 14:28 - Nov 13 with 670 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 06:58 - Nov 13 by Brynmill_Jack |
Just another Dimi. File under sh*t monkey |
Brynmill thank you for considering my thread. I cannot please everyone. Please file it where you feel it is most sutable to yourself. Please read it again 5-10 years down the line. Naturally I except abuse as am criticising the decsions of upto 1300 Trust members a few hundred actually took the trouble to vote. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:46 - Nov 13 with 665 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| 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!?
 |
The figure speak for themselves. My estimates of course for the value of the Trusts 21% holding. Inflation kills the unaware.
Cash recoverable from legal action £13-£14m . Typical on no win no fee deals.
Club valuation in the Championship £12,6m . (based on Derby countys £60m value)
(21% of £60m)
Club valuation if the club gets to the Premier league in 2021 £42m.
(21% of the £200m offer for Burnley FC).
Parody accounts alays have some element of Truth. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:49 - Nov 13 with 665 views | swancity |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:28 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Brynmill thank you for considering my thread. I cannot please everyone. Please file it where you feel it is most sutable to yourself. Please read it again 5-10 years down the line. Naturally I except abuse as am criticising the decsions of upto 1300 Trust members a few hundred actually took the trouble to vote. |
Hi Leigh
It’s of course true that the Trust have made lots of mistakes. Although their intentions were always honourable, they were found wanting at certain times.
However, they were treated badly in terms of the Club sale and that’s not in doubt. It’s quite obvious that you chose to cash in as quickly as you could when relegation was looking more likely. Your protestations on here aren’t helping at all. To sell was your prerogative, morally and legally, but you have let yourselves and others down by your underhand handling of the matter. You excluded people. You went behind their backs and they didn’t deserve that, after years of commitment, friendships and hard work for Swansea City FC. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:03 - Nov 13 with 658 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:46 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The figure speak for themselves. My estimates of course for the value of the Trusts 21% holding. Inflation kills the unaware.
Cash recoverable from legal action £13-£14m . Typical on no win no fee deals.
Club valuation in the Championship £12,6m . (based on Derby countys £60m value)
(21% of £60m)
Club valuation if the club gets to the Premier league in 2021 £42m.
(21% of the £200m offer for Burnley FC).
Parody accounts alays have some element of Truth. |
Not denying any of that. They are plausible figures.
You'd have some credibility if you left it at that. But you loose your rag accuse the trust of the most ridiculous things and don't apply the same standards to other parties.
Then abuse other posters. |  |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:31 - Nov 13 with 652 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:49 - Nov 13 by swancity |
Hi Leigh
It’s of course true that the Trust have made lots of mistakes. Although their intentions were always honourable, they were found wanting at certain times.
However, they were treated badly in terms of the Club sale and that’s not in doubt. It’s quite obvious that you chose to cash in as quickly as you could when relegation was looking more likely. Your protestations on here aren’t helping at all. To sell was your prerogative, morally and legally, but you have let yourselves and others down by your underhand handling of the matter. You excluded people. You went behind their backs and they didn’t deserve that, after years of commitment, friendships and hard work for Swansea City FC. |
I am entirely outside the structure of Swansea city and alway have been. Just a supporter of the team. Representing me of being someone else , bias or mad is a standard technique to discredit my views. I've been called "Leigh" before and "Leigh's brother". I have some ideal who Leigh might be but did not even know he has a brother.
I call on Trust member to look at the basic figures without distraction. Legal action siimply makes no economic or strategic sense given the effects of inflation. Inflation will not wait for the Trust to get their ducks in order which is the point of the thread. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:47 - Nov 13 with 651 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:31 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am entirely outside the structure of Swansea city and alway have been. Just a supporter of the team. Representing me of being someone else , bias or mad is a standard technique to discredit my views. I've been called "Leigh" before and "Leigh's brother". I have some ideal who Leigh might be but did not even know he has a brother.
I call on Trust member to look at the basic figures without distraction. Legal action siimply makes no economic or strategic sense given the effects of inflation. Inflation will not wait for the Trust to get their ducks in order which is the point of the thread. |
But do you also acknowledge that for inflation to be a worthwhile factor :
1) we probably need to get promoted.
2) the trust would need to find a buyer. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 18:00 - Nov 13 with 643 views | BillyChong |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:01 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It does not say the Trust prevented stadium expansion. Who said it did? Its your invented quote. You did not read my post properly.
US people were prepared to buy the Trust shares and wanted the Trust to agree reinvestment down the line. This was a sticking point in negiociations. |
“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.”
I assume by “the good old boys” you mean the Trust. | | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:24 - Nov 13 with 621 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 18:00 - Nov 13 by BillyChong |
“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.”
I assume by “the good old boys” you mean the Trust. |
I remember reading there was stiff opposition from some of the older more 'conservative' elements. Small c obviously we are in south Wales after all.
Fans tend demand US owner investment but not Welsh owner investment. The Trust played the impoverished partners asking for a £4m handout while sitting on a £21m cash pile. Yuk. UK people have become 'victims' and demand attention for their cause. Marcus Rashford is an example of this. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:29 - Nov 13 with 620 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:24 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I remember reading there was stiff opposition from some of the older more 'conservative' elements. Small c obviously we are in south Wales after all.
Fans tend demand US owner investment but not Welsh owner investment. The Trust played the impoverished partners asking for a £4m handout while sitting on a £21m cash pile. Yuk. UK people have become 'victims' and demand attention for their cause. Marcus Rashford is an example of this. |
You've veered off to have another unrelated (and unwarranted) random dig at the trust. This is precisely why no one can take you seriously. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:41 - Nov 13 with 618 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:24 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I remember reading there was stiff opposition from some of the older more 'conservative' elements. Small c obviously we are in south Wales after all.
Fans tend demand US owner investment but not Welsh owner investment. The Trust played the impoverished partners asking for a £4m handout while sitting on a £21m cash pile. Yuk. UK people have become 'victims' and demand attention for their cause. Marcus Rashford is an example of this. |
Nice twisting of the circumstances here by the way.
The trust didn't ask for money did they?
The trust also don't have £21million in cash do they?
You also know the significance of why they asked for that amount of shares but you omitted that too. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 20:32 - Nov 13 with 607 views | Garyjack |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:41 - Nov 13 by Chief |
Nice twisting of the circumstances here by the way.
The trust didn't ask for money did they?
The trust also don't have £21million in cash do they?
You also know the significance of why they asked for that amount of shares but you omitted that too. |
Let's not forget that Mel Nurses preferred option was to sell his shares to the Trust, but was stopped from doing so citing The Shareholders Agreement, which miraculously didn't exist according to Huw Jenkins some years later! [Post edited 13 Nov 2020 20:37]
|  | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:12 - Nov 13 with 592 views | onehunglow |
Local people too eh Gary,stabbing each other in the back. That is what the Trust was there for -innit. To stop us infighting at the club's expense | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:15 - Nov 13 with 589 views | BillyChong |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:24 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I remember reading there was stiff opposition from some of the older more 'conservative' elements. Small c obviously we are in south Wales after all.
Fans tend demand US owner investment but not Welsh owner investment. The Trust played the impoverished partners asking for a £4m handout while sitting on a £21m cash pile. Yuk. UK people have become 'victims' and demand attention for their cause. Marcus Rashford is an example of this. |
So the Trust didn’t hamper stadium expansion then? | | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:46 - Nov 13 with 579 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:41 - Nov 13 by Chief |
Nice twisting of the circumstances here by the way.
The trust didn't ask for money did they?
The trust also don't have £21million in cash do they?
You also know the significance of why they asked for that amount of shares but you omitted that too. |
The 25% threshold would have given the Trust the ability to stop the US owners carry out they objectives. I took this from the web.
"Over 25%. Do not underestimate however the strength of holding over one quarter of the share capital. With this you can block special resolutions (which require approval of the holders of 75% or more of the share capital)".
The Trust's strategy was to get to 25% but they had no way of getting there with out a donation of around £4,000 from each of their members. Their strategy was therefore a complete non starter
As part of this strategy they ludicrously asked for a donation of a £4m of shares from the US people to allow them to stop any plans the US people might have. The Trust have only ever invested £200,000 in the club and have never had these powers. This was a bizarre request that made no sense and may have sown distrust. The asertion that a previous shareholder had wanted to sell his stake to the Trust alone was disputed in a thread on here 2 years ago. [Post edited 13 Nov 2020 21:58]
| |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:52 - Nov 13 with 576 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:15 - Nov 13 by BillyChong |
So the Trust didn’t hamper stadium expansion then? |
No they did not. They could not have, as no plans were made and in any case the US people woud have cracked on without them. They would have course have been diluted. The 21% holding is far too big for them and always was. They have negligible income.
They cannot share in the investment load as they need to find £1 for every £4 the USA people spent. Had they held 10% of the club they would have £10m in the bank and only need to find £1 for every £9 the US people spent. Idealy they would have only 5% of the club £16m in the bank and only need to fnd £1 per for every £19 invested by the US people to avoid dilution. This was a sesnble holding and should have been the objective after 2015 offer was rejected. [Post edited 13 Nov 2020 21:56]
| |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:57 - Nov 13 with 573 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:46 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The 25% threshold would have given the Trust the ability to stop the US owners carry out they objectives. I took this from the web.
"Over 25%. Do not underestimate however the strength of holding over one quarter of the share capital. With this you can block special resolutions (which require approval of the holders of 75% or more of the share capital)".
The Trust's strategy was to get to 25% but they had no way of getting there with out a donation of around £4,000 from each of their members. Their strategy was therefore a complete non starter
As part of this strategy they ludicrously asked for a donation of a £4m of shares from the US people to allow them to stop any plans the US people might have. The Trust have only ever invested £200,000 in the club and have never had these powers. This was a bizarre request that made no sense and may have sown distrust. The asertion that a previous shareholder had wanted to sell his stake to the Trust alone was disputed in a thread on here 2 years ago. [Post edited 13 Nov 2020 21:58]
|
The request made plenty of sense. Would certainly have been a statement of intent that the Americans were prepared to work with the trust, respect the fans and allay some fears. I'm not surprised they declined but you can't blame the trust for trying. You'd probably have criticised them for not trying if they hadn't.
Thanks for confirming that your previous comment on the subject was bollox. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:11 - Nov 13 with 570 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:57 - Nov 13 by Chief |
The request made plenty of sense. Would certainly have been a statement of intent that the Americans were prepared to work with the trust, respect the fans and allay some fears. I'm not surprised they declined but you can't blame the trust for trying. You'd probably have criticised them for not trying if they hadn't.
Thanks for confirming that your previous comment on the subject was bollox. |
I am here to educate and encourage the clubs owners to the path of friendliness and co-opoeration now the main perpetrators of friction have moved on. I merely explained the significance of the 25% to the casual reader.
The Trust chairman should have asked for a date with Mindy Kalin the same time and ask her to pay for the meal. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:19 - Nov 13 with 569 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:11 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am here to educate and encourage the clubs owners to the path of friendliness and co-opoeration now the main perpetrators of friction have moved on. I merely explained the significance of the 25% to the casual reader.
The Trust chairman should have asked for a date with Mindy Kalin the same time and ask her to pay for the meal. |
What are you on about in the first paragraph? Are you hoping the Americans are reading? What friction? Who' were the main perpetrators? | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:26 - Nov 13 with 567 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:52 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
No they did not. They could not have, as no plans were made and in any case the US people woud have cracked on without them. They would have course have been diluted. The 21% holding is far too big for them and always was. They have negligible income.
They cannot share in the investment load as they need to find £1 for every £4 the USA people spent. Had they held 10% of the club they would have £10m in the bank and only need to find £1 for every £9 the US people spent. Idealy they would have only 5% of the club £16m in the bank and only need to fnd £1 per for every £19 invested by the US people to avoid dilution. This was a sesnble holding and should have been the objective after 2015 offer was rejected. [Post edited 13 Nov 2020 21:56]
|
- So why on earth did you bring up this about the stadium at all if you are saying that the trust didn't stop any possible expansion!?
- The US people would have cracked on without them? Cracked on doing what?
- Diluted? How? If theyd taken this deal the trust would have been down to 10.5% through sale, not dilution.
- Too big how?
- The US people haven't spent anything - so no need for the trust to find that money. Likewise neither did the sell outs ever put any of their own money in.
- No they wouldn't have £10mill in the bank because the deal would have been dependent on them spending some of that 10mill on stadium expansion. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 13:34 - Nov 14 with 537 views | Garyjack |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:46 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The 25% threshold would have given the Trust the ability to stop the US owners carry out they objectives. I took this from the web.
"Over 25%. Do not underestimate however the strength of holding over one quarter of the share capital. With this you can block special resolutions (which require approval of the holders of 75% or more of the share capital)".
The Trust's strategy was to get to 25% but they had no way of getting there with out a donation of around £4,000 from each of their members. Their strategy was therefore a complete non starter
As part of this strategy they ludicrously asked for a donation of a £4m of shares from the US people to allow them to stop any plans the US people might have. The Trust have only ever invested £200,000 in the club and have never had these powers. This was a bizarre request that made no sense and may have sown distrust. The asertion that a previous shareholder had wanted to sell his stake to the Trust alone was disputed in a thread on here 2 years ago. [Post edited 13 Nov 2020 21:58]
|
It may well have been disputed, doesn't mean it isn't true as it was Mel himself who told me! | | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 13:34 - Nov 14 with 537 views | BillyChong |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:26 - Nov 13 by Chief |
- So why on earth did you bring up this about the stadium at all if you are saying that the trust didn't stop any possible expansion!?
- The US people would have cracked on without them? Cracked on doing what?
- Diluted? How? If theyd taken this deal the trust would have been down to 10.5% through sale, not dilution.
- Too big how?
- The US people haven't spent anything - so no need for the trust to find that money. Likewise neither did the sell outs ever put any of their own money in.
- No they wouldn't have £10mill in the bank because the deal would have been dependent on them spending some of that 10mill on stadium expansion. |
The Americans were hailed by this guy for giving the steelwork a lick of paint remember | | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:50 - Nov 14 with 528 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:26 - Nov 13 by Chief |
- So why on earth did you bring up this about the stadium at all if you are saying that the trust didn't stop any possible expansion!?
- The US people would have cracked on without them? Cracked on doing what?
- Diluted? How? If theyd taken this deal the trust would have been down to 10.5% through sale, not dilution.
- Too big how?
- The US people haven't spent anything - so no need for the trust to find that money. Likewise neither did the sell outs ever put any of their own money in.
- No they wouldn't have £10mill in the bank because the deal would have been dependent on them spending some of that 10mill on stadium expansion. |
This argument is critical to understand that under the previous leadership the Trust was not fit for purpose.
The US people offered to buy he Trusts shares for upto £10m for 10% and wanted a commitment from the Trust to join them in investing in the stadium expansion by putting in 10% of the £20m costs (£2m) . From what I read there was considerable opposition to this. Remember the money talked about was 'new money' not money from the business. Some think this is why the talks stalled. The Trust would have in theory been 11% owners of a club with a 30,000 seater stadium with £8m or so in the bank all beng well. with the club worth at least £200m the Trust holding would have increased fro £21m to £30m. (11% of £200m = £22m plus £8m in the bank)
The Trust wanted to be gifted shares worth £4m for doing nothing while on the other hand retaining no cash reserves to share in investment for at that time the much needed stadium expansion. If the US people and others did it alone then the Trust would have it's share holding diluted.
Once Roberto Martinez had taken Swansea to a new level with the new stadium the 21% holding was far too big for the Trust to manage in an era where investment was required. Any strategic thinker could see this. The Trusts management could not. They were on easy street. When the sale happened the realities of their untenable position became aparent and anger and frustration kicked in . If the other owners put in a modest £4m into the club the Trust could not find even £1m to pay their share.
The period 2002 -2016 was a period on unprecedented success and growth. The Trust old boys relaxed in their arm chairs and the Trust chairman told the world the SCST was the most sucessfull supporters Trust in the World. This was correct but it could not last forever. The Trust took their dividends and exclaimed we will never sell. This meant also "we will never invest as our 21% holding is far too great and we have no money and neither do the members".
No owners of Swansea city have put in any money to help the club sinc 2002. The owner of Stoke has injected £180m over the same period and are no better off. The Trust was truly blessed. The members wanted things to carry on as before taking money out not putting money in. Huw Jenkins was a miracle worker. The Trust as so deluded they cannot see this and neither can you. If Swansea was run ike Stoke the Trusts holding would be 3- 5% not 21%.
The US owners encouraged the Trust to be owners / investors. The Trust just wanted to own more shares for free and get paid dividends. They are no use to the club with that lazy mindset. Uncle Huw and his majic wand has gone and there is a cold chill in the air. Time for the new Trust board to move forward with a new mindset in my opinion.
I suspect this post will not make no sense to you and will just generate a whole new bunch of questions after which you will call me a beurk or something. I think I have explored this avenue enough. I keep giving answer you do not like. You have no answers of you own just questions. I suggest you give the Trust board a grilling. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:31 - Nov 14 with 513 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:50 - Nov 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This argument is critical to understand that under the previous leadership the Trust was not fit for purpose.
The US people offered to buy he Trusts shares for upto £10m for 10% and wanted a commitment from the Trust to join them in investing in the stadium expansion by putting in 10% of the £20m costs (£2m) . From what I read there was considerable opposition to this. Remember the money talked about was 'new money' not money from the business. Some think this is why the talks stalled. The Trust would have in theory been 11% owners of a club with a 30,000 seater stadium with £8m or so in the bank all beng well. with the club worth at least £200m the Trust holding would have increased fro £21m to £30m. (11% of £200m = £22m plus £8m in the bank)
The Trust wanted to be gifted shares worth £4m for doing nothing while on the other hand retaining no cash reserves to share in investment for at that time the much needed stadium expansion. If the US people and others did it alone then the Trust would have it's share holding diluted.
Once Roberto Martinez had taken Swansea to a new level with the new stadium the 21% holding was far too big for the Trust to manage in an era where investment was required. Any strategic thinker could see this. The Trusts management could not. They were on easy street. When the sale happened the realities of their untenable position became aparent and anger and frustration kicked in . If the other owners put in a modest £4m into the club the Trust could not find even £1m to pay their share.
The period 2002 -2016 was a period on unprecedented success and growth. The Trust old boys relaxed in their arm chairs and the Trust chairman told the world the SCST was the most sucessfull supporters Trust in the World. This was correct but it could not last forever. The Trust took their dividends and exclaimed we will never sell. This meant also "we will never invest as our 21% holding is far too great and we have no money and neither do the members".
No owners of Swansea city have put in any money to help the club sinc 2002. The owner of Stoke has injected £180m over the same period and are no better off. The Trust was truly blessed. The members wanted things to carry on as before taking money out not putting money in. Huw Jenkins was a miracle worker. The Trust as so deluded they cannot see this and neither can you. If Swansea was run ike Stoke the Trusts holding would be 3- 5% not 21%.
The US owners encouraged the Trust to be owners / investors. The Trust just wanted to own more shares for free and get paid dividends. They are no use to the club with that lazy mindset. Uncle Huw and his majic wand has gone and there is a cold chill in the air. Time for the new Trust board to move forward with a new mindset in my opinion.
I suspect this post will not make no sense to you and will just generate a whole new bunch of questions after which you will call me a beurk or something. I think I have explored this avenue enough. I keep giving answer you do not like. You have no answers of you own just questions. I suggest you give the Trust board a grilling. |
- So presumably you think that not expanding the stadium was a bad thing then? Do you place any criticism at the Americans door for not expanding then? Presumably they have the means to make up the 2mill that would have come from the trust to have gone and done it alone?
- I'm no expert but consider this point - if the US had gone and expanded alone as you suggest - remember the football club do not own the stadium. You also say the financing would have come from their private reserves. How then would this dilute other shareholders? Looking at it logically that would just be a side deal and have no bearing on the shares of SCFC itself?
- On a related note and ignoring the considerations surrounding attendances&whether it would be worth it etc, would it have been wise in a business sense (this applies to the US too) to pay for work on a property they do not own? I know there's an agreement with the council but it still doesn't amount to owning the stadium.
- How was 21% unmanageable for the trust in league 1 or the championship? Was the other 79% also unmanageable for the sell outs too then? Because they didn't invest and the club didn't suffer one bit. You talk like we were relegated or something. But that's not the reality. Your point makes no sense. We know the facts of the era. Even now we don't need any outside investment in reality.
- You posted a quote recently from the trust chairman actually saying they've never said that they never sell. And also the fact that you cannot address - there was never any reason to sell.
- I don't know what the relevance of your thoughts on Huw here are? I've stated he was a fantastic chairman. And no one has ever called for us to be ran like Stoke.
- Well not lazy at all is it, they are a supporters trust, not an investment vehicle and there's the considerations I've laid out above.
- the trust have no shareholding is exactly going in a different direction.
- yes we have to question you because your logic at times is strange requires clarification. I've repeatedly provided counters to the vast majority of your points that you should consider 'answers'. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 16:19 - Nov 14 with 504 views | onehunglow |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:11 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am here to educate and encourage the clubs owners to the path of friendliness and co-opoeration now the main perpetrators of friction have moved on. I merely explained the significance of the 25% to the casual reader.
The Trust chairman should have asked for a date with Mindy Kalin the same time and ask her to pay for the meal. |
Thanks so much.Ungrateful buggers aren't we. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 23:58 - Nov 14 with 466 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:31 - Nov 14 by Chief |
- So presumably you think that not expanding the stadium was a bad thing then? Do you place any criticism at the Americans door for not expanding then? Presumably they have the means to make up the 2mill that would have come from the trust to have gone and done it alone?
- I'm no expert but consider this point - if the US had gone and expanded alone as you suggest - remember the football club do not own the stadium. You also say the financing would have come from their private reserves. How then would this dilute other shareholders? Looking at it logically that would just be a side deal and have no bearing on the shares of SCFC itself?
- On a related note and ignoring the considerations surrounding attendances&whether it would be worth it etc, would it have been wise in a business sense (this applies to the US too) to pay for work on a property they do not own? I know there's an agreement with the council but it still doesn't amount to owning the stadium.
- How was 21% unmanageable for the trust in league 1 or the championship? Was the other 79% also unmanageable for the sell outs too then? Because they didn't invest and the club didn't suffer one bit. You talk like we were relegated or something. But that's not the reality. Your point makes no sense. We know the facts of the era. Even now we don't need any outside investment in reality.
- You posted a quote recently from the trust chairman actually saying they've never said that they never sell. And also the fact that you cannot address - there was never any reason to sell.
- I don't know what the relevance of your thoughts on Huw here are? I've stated he was a fantastic chairman. And no one has ever called for us to be ran like Stoke.
- Well not lazy at all is it, they are a supporters trust, not an investment vehicle and there's the considerations I've laid out above.
- the trust have no shareholding is exactly going in a different direction.
- yes we have to question you because your logic at times is strange requires clarification. I've repeatedly provided counters to the vast majority of your points that you should consider 'answers'. |
Expanding the stadium was essential in the PL to increase the value of their holding and by association the value of the Trust will incresase as well. They will make money by growth not dividends.
10,000 extra season tickets generates £4m-5m per season therefore paying it off in 4-5 seasons. Our rivals up the road have already done it.
The 21% is way too big for the Trust as they have no cash and therefore cannot hope to invest and become useful members of the board not just passengers. Yes they probably did not need the Trusts money. The wanted to sit on their holding and reieve dividends. For this they should be invested in Glaxosmithkline Beacham or National Grid a big boring UK utility. They should not be invested in Swansea city.
The Club do have control of the stadium and can do what they like to it within limits. It is a commercial lease of 30 yeras of so similar to what stores use. The extra £20m would reduce the Trusts holding by 4% to 17% from 21% by rough calculation. What is a side deal?
Although the stadium is under control off Swansea city it would return to the council in 30 years. The council do not want it and the lease means it cannot be used for anything else. Only the Ospreys is a possible other user and they have no need for a 30,000 seater stadium with crowds around 7,000. Some think they will not exist in 30 years. The council would not want the club to move away as seen in Coventry. Swansea city means income for the council who were losing money until the Americans turned up.
Mr Morgan and Mr Jenkins were sensible in their approach. They wanted to stay for future growth and I believe would invest if required The 5% is a managable holding for them meaning they can maintain a meaning ful role and invest at £1 for evey £19 invested by the US people. The Trust on the other hand need to find £1 for every £4 US investment. They have no money. It is a scandal they are giving it away to outsiders in my opinion.
All the other investors had some money in leagues 1 and 2 but I suspect they did not want to put more of their private money into the club. HJ did such an outstanding job they did not need to. Roberto Martinez being very ambitious wanted cash to buy Jordi Gomez and James McCarthey for £6-7m. The club needed new funding. The club declined and RM left.
The other owners knew they could not fund big new invstments and chose to sell up and started looking for buyers . The Trust sat on it hands refusing to sell. 21% holding was not unmanagable with HJ runing the club with an iron grip on costs. This meant selling players over the years. Fans demanded investment. the 21% Trust holding meant no investment. The club will need investment to cover covid costs. Rodon had to be sold at a lower than expected price to offset investment. Had he not been sold then investment would have been needed. Peterson going was absolutely necessary.
There was reason to sell as the investments of the Trust would by any registered approved financial consultant be considered 'extremely high risk'. This is playing the members money in a casino. HJ played his chips very well. I find it unfathomable that he is now loathed by the fans. They must be truly dim. The sellers knew the risks were massive and wanted to leave the casino from 2015 onwards. They would not accept the Trust forcing them to stay by dragging their heals and being awkward. The way I see it the Trust are considering suing for losses they incured from their own carelessness and lack of strategy and apreciation of risk.
Relegation saw a drop in the Trusts valuation from £21m to about £8m. Recent valuations might indicate a valuation of £12m based on the offer for Derby County. They are going to court for these losses.
If I was a judge I would ask "why on earth were you invested in a very high risk asset for so long?. You were in the Premier league for 7 seasons. If it is too hot get out of the kitchen ". Offers to allow them to leave were not taken. Great patience was shown by the buyer.
A legal win will see the Trust convert to an investment Trust in order to prevent inflation rendering them irrelevant. They will need to generate 4% growth at least You said it. So why are they consiering making this transfer? Without activly managing their funds their money will be halved in 15-20 years having already been reduced at least 40% in legal cost. Remember the key word Inflation. If you sleep it will bite you on your butt.
The way foreward is to understand their history and not make the same mistakes. The Trust should endeavour to sell inthe premier league and hold 5% to allow them to invest and maintain their holding. Legal action an incredibly dim strategy and should be reviewd by a financial strategist. It will have consequence for the club as it will need to be paid in a short period of time. The Trust have no immedate use for this money. A completely useless stategy with no good outcome. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.