| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust 14:10 - Nov 8 with 5494 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 02:02 - Nov 15 with 576 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 23:58 - Nov 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
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. |
- yea but I'm not sure improving an asset not owned by the club would increase the value of the club.
- Pretty unlikely we'd have sold another 10k season tickets don't you think?
- Cardiff only had a nice new red stand because it was paid for by UEFA for the super cup final.
- So you're saying that none of our other shareholders past and present are useless too then? Because they have more than 21% and none of them have become 'investors' either.
- You then seem to have simultaneously hit the nail on the head&missed the point in the next sentence. somehow. The trust's purpose isn't to be an investment vehicle if they were as you say they could get involved in a different company.
- What extra 20million?
- The side deal being the US people paying for work out of their own funds separate from the club on an asset not owned and therefore separate from the club.
- there are other revenue streams such as corporate meeting facilities and other things such as concerts separate from sport too.
- No I'm not doubting the councils integrity and desire for the Swans to stay there. But legally they simply don't own the stadium.
- You seem obsessed with this notion of shareholders investing into the club. That hasn't happened in 20 years. Morgan and Jenkins have been there that whole time. Not sure why you think its suddenly needed now or why you think they'd chip in now.
- What outsiders? Legal team? That logics obviously flawed. Its chicken or the egg that one.
- Evidently the club didn't need new funding. History shows us this for a fact. Martinez left for Wigan due to his ties there and anyway without any investment which you claim was necessary we were a Premier league club 2 years after his departure.
- You mean the sell outs found buyers and didn't give the trust the chance to sell.
- Are you saying then that the Americans aren't up to running the club? Do they not have an iron grip on costs?
- the trust holding 21% meant no investment? I'm sorry but how's that the case?
- Didn't you say that Silversteins loan allowed us the luxury of not having to sell Rodon at a lower cost?
- Again and this is getting boring - to the trust just being on the board&having a stake whilst working with a cooperative majority shareholder was all the trust really wanted. The price of their shares or what they'd receive if some hypothetical buyer came in for them was irrelevant because weren't some venture capitalist body. There was no need or desire to sell. I'm amazed you are still so incapable of grasping this.
- And again you aren't thinking like a fan - he's loathed because he screwed the trust. It's obvious. And yes agreed he was desperate to get cash so colluded to keep the trust in the dark.
- What carelessness and risk? What are you on about there?
- Well hopefully the judge isn't as biased as you and I doubt he'd ask such stupid questions.. They were invested in it for that long because they are a supporters trust for christ sake. Offers weren't made for the same terms or at the same as the sell outs. Fact. They wouldn't have rescinded the offer if they had patience.
- Right so you're saying there are opportunities for the proceeds in the event of a trust win to be grown in the upcoming years. Good stuff.
- We aren't in the Premier league. And if we are promoted, why the need for shareholders to invest their own money?
- Who knows what payment plan will be set up. Can't be dim though can it? A victory will see them making a huge profit on their original investment and "no mark up of that magnitude is ever a bad deal" and a loss means keeping the shareholding ready to sell when we get promoted. This is your logic.
I noticed you dodged my question about the Americans electing not to expand too. [Post edited 15 Nov 2020 9:15]
|  |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:28 - Nov 15 with 531 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 02:02 - Nov 15 by Chief |
- yea but I'm not sure improving an asset not owned by the club would increase the value of the club.
- Pretty unlikely we'd have sold another 10k season tickets don't you think?
- Cardiff only had a nice new red stand because it was paid for by UEFA for the super cup final.
- So you're saying that none of our other shareholders past and present are useless too then? Because they have more than 21% and none of them have become 'investors' either.
- You then seem to have simultaneously hit the nail on the head&missed the point in the next sentence. somehow. The trust's purpose isn't to be an investment vehicle if they were as you say they could get involved in a different company.
- What extra 20million?
- The side deal being the US people paying for work out of their own funds separate from the club on an asset not owned and therefore separate from the club.
- there are other revenue streams such as corporate meeting facilities and other things such as concerts separate from sport too.
- No I'm not doubting the councils integrity and desire for the Swans to stay there. But legally they simply don't own the stadium.
- You seem obsessed with this notion of shareholders investing into the club. That hasn't happened in 20 years. Morgan and Jenkins have been there that whole time. Not sure why you think its suddenly needed now or why you think they'd chip in now.
- What outsiders? Legal team? That logics obviously flawed. Its chicken or the egg that one.
- Evidently the club didn't need new funding. History shows us this for a fact. Martinez left for Wigan due to his ties there and anyway without any investment which you claim was necessary we were a Premier league club 2 years after his departure.
- You mean the sell outs found buyers and didn't give the trust the chance to sell.
- Are you saying then that the Americans aren't up to running the club? Do they not have an iron grip on costs?
- the trust holding 21% meant no investment? I'm sorry but how's that the case?
- Didn't you say that Silversteins loan allowed us the luxury of not having to sell Rodon at a lower cost?
- Again and this is getting boring - to the trust just being on the board&having a stake whilst working with a cooperative majority shareholder was all the trust really wanted. The price of their shares or what they'd receive if some hypothetical buyer came in for them was irrelevant because weren't some venture capitalist body. There was no need or desire to sell. I'm amazed you are still so incapable of grasping this.
- And again you aren't thinking like a fan - he's loathed because he screwed the trust. It's obvious. And yes agreed he was desperate to get cash so colluded to keep the trust in the dark.
- What carelessness and risk? What are you on about there?
- Well hopefully the judge isn't as biased as you and I doubt he'd ask such stupid questions.. They were invested in it for that long because they are a supporters trust for christ sake. Offers weren't made for the same terms or at the same as the sell outs. Fact. They wouldn't have rescinded the offer if they had patience.
- Right so you're saying there are opportunities for the proceeds in the event of a trust win to be grown in the upcoming years. Good stuff.
- We aren't in the Premier league. And if we are promoted, why the need for shareholders to invest their own money?
- Who knows what payment plan will be set up. Can't be dim though can it? A victory will see them making a huge profit on their original investment and "no mark up of that magnitude is ever a bad deal" and a loss means keeping the shareholding ready to sell when we get promoted. This is your logic.
I noticed you dodged my question about the Americans electing not to expand too. [Post edited 15 Nov 2020 9:15]
|
The Club owns the stadium for upto 30 years under what I suspect is land lease terms
https://www.investopedia.com/t
Although an expanded stadium could go back to the council the primary use of the stadium would still be for the use of Swansea city FC. The US owners cannot bulldoze the stadium and build flats instead. Terms for after the lease may already be agreed in principle. Of course if the lease after 30 years or so is too great the club could relocated elsewhere leaving a white elephant for the council. Something similar happened in Coventry. What are the council going to do with a 30,000 seater football stadium with no team?
Adding 10k extra seats will definately increase the value of the club without a doubt as income increase from matchday returns. This only realy applies in the premeir league. However the club could get bigger crowds in the Championship by reducing ticket prices for young people and students.
UEFA did not pay for Cardiff's new stand. Vincent Tan paid for the CCS new stand with a £35m investment which saw debts wiped off and the stand built. His minor shareholders were diluted.
The fans benefit from the stadium expansion as the club can hold concerts and confences and any profits generated could be shared.
The club was lucky again this year in being able to sell three players two unwanted and one very much wanted. This brought in £20m. There is no guarentee that the club will be able to sell in future. Spurs were able to squeeze down the price as they knew there is minimal investment in Swansea city. I hoped the Silverstein investment was large enoungh to be able to keep Rodon. This may have been a bluff to push up the Rodon price and throw Birch off the scent.
You fail to understand the rise of SCFC 2002 -2016 was unprecedented due to the brilliance of the people runing the club. Getting back to the PL with out finance will be very difficult. The US people might injet some funds. They already have but details are sketchy.
The US people are well capable of running the club are are prepared to take greater risks than was the previous leadership. This is the 'next level' argument. Ideally they want their investment in tangibles like the stadium rather than players. Higher risk means worse "hard medicine" when it does not work. The Club recruitment under HJ and Potter came up short in the last few season. Mr Scott's work might be better and seem a better investment for them.
When the club returns to the PL it will still need investment to build the stadium expansion.
A potential for upto 10k new season ticket holders. Added to this the US will use the expansion to get stadium naming rights as they did with Audi field in Washington.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2020 14:35]
| |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:17 - Nov 15 with 514 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:28 - Nov 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Club owns the stadium for upto 30 years under what I suspect is land lease terms
https://www.investopedia.com/t
Although an expanded stadium could go back to the council the primary use of the stadium would still be for the use of Swansea city FC. The US owners cannot bulldoze the stadium and build flats instead. Terms for after the lease may already be agreed in principle. Of course if the lease after 30 years or so is too great the club could relocated elsewhere leaving a white elephant for the council. Something similar happened in Coventry. What are the council going to do with a 30,000 seater football stadium with no team?
Adding 10k extra seats will definately increase the value of the club without a doubt as income increase from matchday returns. This only realy applies in the premeir league. However the club could get bigger crowds in the Championship by reducing ticket prices for young people and students.
UEFA did not pay for Cardiff's new stand. Vincent Tan paid for the CCS new stand with a £35m investment which saw debts wiped off and the stand built. His minor shareholders were diluted.
The fans benefit from the stadium expansion as the club can hold concerts and confences and any profits generated could be shared.
The club was lucky again this year in being able to sell three players two unwanted and one very much wanted. This brought in £20m. There is no guarentee that the club will be able to sell in future. Spurs were able to squeeze down the price as they knew there is minimal investment in Swansea city. I hoped the Silverstein investment was large enoungh to be able to keep Rodon. This may have been a bluff to push up the Rodon price and throw Birch off the scent.
You fail to understand the rise of SCFC 2002 -2016 was unprecedented due to the brilliance of the people runing the club. Getting back to the PL with out finance will be very difficult. The US people might injet some funds. They already have but details are sketchy.
The US people are well capable of running the club are are prepared to take greater risks than was the previous leadership. This is the 'next level' argument. Ideally they want their investment in tangibles like the stadium rather than players. Higher risk means worse "hard medicine" when it does not work. The Club recruitment under HJ and Potter came up short in the last few season. Mr Scott's work might be better and seem a better investment for them.
When the club returns to the PL it will still need investment to build the stadium expansion.
A potential for upto 10k new season ticket holders. Added to this the US will use the expansion to get stadium naming rights as they did with Audi field in Washington.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2020 14:35]
|
I take all those points on board. But ultimately your inference that the trust were to blame for preventing stadium expansion are false. The Americans have the resources to do this themselves but have as of yet chosen not to do so. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:18 - Nov 15 with 514 views | chad |
| 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. |
Perhaps educate yourself on the difference between a loan and an investment first
And of course the difference between fact and things you make up and present as fact |  | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:32 - Nov 15 with 510 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:17 - Nov 15 by Chief |
I take all those points on board. But ultimately your inference that the trust were to blame for preventing stadium expansion are false. The Americans have the resources to do this themselves but have as of yet chosen not to do so. |
Relegation prevented to stadium redevelopment nothing else as far as i know. It was the club that notified the fans of an investment.
https://www.swanseacity.com/ne [Post edited 15 Nov 2020 15:33]
| |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:35 - Nov 15 with 506 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:32 - Nov 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Relegation prevented to stadium redevelopment nothing else as far as i know. It was the club that notified the fans of an investment.
https://www.swanseacity.com/ne [Post edited 15 Nov 2020 15:33]
|
- OK thanks for confirming that the trust cannot be blamed for that.
- yes the club announced 'investment' (actually just a loan). | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.