| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 17:19 - Dec 28 with 1151 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 16:55 - Dec 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Dillution means investment. Investment means survival. Dillution of owners with no cash is a good thing in my book. The Trust had nothing to offer the club under its previous leadership at least.
I do not know which point you need answering. Please can you resubmit and I will respond. |
- Investment means being in the pocket of people who have already poured over 70mill into this venture. No thank you. Winter stated himself we have no debt (apart from this that Silverstein has dumped on us), so saying this means survival is a huge stretch. Winter also implied the (cut price) sale of Rodon would help us through this period - but now we need another 10mill to survive!?
- Not everything is about cash. The trust offers things the Americans cannot.
- This dilution wont get rid of them entirely anyway so not sure why you're so smug about it. Didnt you say on a different thread that dilution would not diminish the value of their shares anyway?
- ive made several points that you've ignored. Mainly that a random bloke putting money into the club who's going to want it back at some point is no good thing. |  |
|  |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 18:10 - Dec 28 with 1129 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 17:19 - Dec 28 by Chief |
- Investment means being in the pocket of people who have already poured over 70mill into this venture. No thank you. Winter stated himself we have no debt (apart from this that Silverstein has dumped on us), so saying this means survival is a huge stretch. Winter also implied the (cut price) sale of Rodon would help us through this period - but now we need another 10mill to survive!?
- Not everything is about cash. The trust offers things the Americans cannot.
- This dilution wont get rid of them entirely anyway so not sure why you're so smug about it. Didnt you say on a different thread that dilution would not diminish the value of their shares anyway?
- ive made several points that you've ignored. Mainly that a random bloke putting money into the club who's going to want it back at some point is no good thing. |
CHIEF
- Investment means being in the pocket of people who have already poured over 70mill into this venture. No thank you. Winter stated himself we have no debt (apart from this that Silverstein has dumped on us), so saying this means survival is a huge stretch. Winter also implied the (cut price) sale of Rodon would help us through this period - but now we need another 10mill to survive!?
RS
'Investment' outside your world is good thing. It keeps debt down allows for spending on staff, footballers, equipment, insurances and maintenance all of which are desirable. The new pitch demanded by fans the painting of the stadium. etc It all takes money. Income in the form of a loans need to be paid back, investments do not.
Winter himself stated the club is progressing surviving on player sales and cash input from the owners. As the money is a CLN it is not necessarity a debt. It should turn into a cash investment that does not need to be returned by the club. There was no investment after 2002 because the club was superby run and built things without loans. Organic growth. This work is not properly recognised by fans who accepted sucess as natural or even 'just good luck'. The CLN was before the Rodon sale meaning the Rodon sale was not essential but desirable. £11m was a similar price Liverpool played for an international Greek full back.
Winter got the best price he could with no other clubs interested. The club got 3 player worth £5-6 m from other distressed sellers for pennies. Spurs will probably pay their fee in staged payments so the £10m (assumed) will assist in cash flow and therefore to be welcomed. It is doubtful the club woud have brought in those three palyers at knockdown prices without the insurance of the CLN. (extra wages to fund). Covid has seen inome reduction of probably at least £5m.
CHIEF
- Not everything is about cash. The trust offers things the Americans cannot.
RS
This is true if they had good relations with the other shareholders. I believed they have helped to foster antipathy of the fans to the club owners even indirectly leading to that infamous protest march. Selling their shares to a manageable holding for huge profits would have helped them and geneal owner relations. They have argued they were prevented from selling. I do not believe this.
CHIEF
- This dilution wont get rid of them entirely anyway so not sure why you're so smug about it. Didnt you say on a different thread that dilution would not diminish the value of their shares anyway?
RS
I want the Trust to be a shareholder and support the other shareholders in their decsion and investments. In other words pull their weight as owners. I am a proud Welshmen and the Trust is Welsh but must graft and contribute like anyone else. It is not a charity. They need cash in the bank. The vilificcation of Huw Jenkins is a disgrace. The financial value of the Trusts shares notionally does not change as a result of dilution if the club stays as a mid tale championship club. However the Trusts share will miss out on the benefits of investment that they chose not to contribute to. Swansea will stay like Blackburn Rovers. Ideally the club will be sold in the premier league for the price Burnley is being sold £200m. Silversteins £5m at £50m will become £20m at Burnley prices. A clear £15m profit. I hope he gets it. The diluted say 15% share of £200m will be £30m. Every one happy. The investment if it is cnverted helps Swansea to suceed and increase the clubs vauation.
CHIEF
- ive made several points that you've ignored. Mainly that a random bloke putting money into the club who's going to want it back at some point is no good thing.
RS
I answered this point. Silverstein is a well regarded sports investor in the USA with a high ethical reputation. He is not a 'random bloke' and claims to have followed Swansea from afar and is putting his morey where his mouth is. He has already made a real difference and backing his judgement. He could make money he could lose money. He stated he would be hands on so must be following the actions of Mr Winter, Cooper and Scott. He hopefully has convinced the Trust to be more positive owners I regard his auditing much more important than that of the Trust because it is his own cash. He also has good relations with Levien and co. If the new £10m helps Swansea to the premier leagues directly or indirectly the Trust stand to make huge gains even if diluted and they agree to sell. As in 2016 the Trust had they sold would have made twice as much as the 10% shareholder that sold. [Post edited 28 Dec 2020 18:17]
|  |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 19:10 - Dec 28 with 1111 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 18:10 - Dec 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
CHIEF
- Investment means being in the pocket of people who have already poured over 70mill into this venture. No thank you. Winter stated himself we have no debt (apart from this that Silverstein has dumped on us), so saying this means survival is a huge stretch. Winter also implied the (cut price) sale of Rodon would help us through this period - but now we need another 10mill to survive!?
RS
'Investment' outside your world is good thing. It keeps debt down allows for spending on staff, footballers, equipment, insurances and maintenance all of which are desirable. The new pitch demanded by fans the painting of the stadium. etc It all takes money. Income in the form of a loans need to be paid back, investments do not.
Winter himself stated the club is progressing surviving on player sales and cash input from the owners. As the money is a CLN it is not necessarity a debt. It should turn into a cash investment that does not need to be returned by the club. There was no investment after 2002 because the club was superby run and built things without loans. Organic growth. This work is not properly recognised by fans who accepted sucess as natural or even 'just good luck'. The CLN was before the Rodon sale meaning the Rodon sale was not essential but desirable. £11m was a similar price Liverpool played for an international Greek full back.
Winter got the best price he could with no other clubs interested. The club got 3 player worth £5-6 m from other distressed sellers for pennies. Spurs will probably pay their fee in staged payments so the £10m (assumed) will assist in cash flow and therefore to be welcomed. It is doubtful the club woud have brought in those three palyers at knockdown prices without the insurance of the CLN. (extra wages to fund). Covid has seen inome reduction of probably at least £5m.
CHIEF
- Not everything is about cash. The trust offers things the Americans cannot.
RS
This is true if they had good relations with the other shareholders. I believed they have helped to foster antipathy of the fans to the club owners even indirectly leading to that infamous protest march. Selling their shares to a manageable holding for huge profits would have helped them and geneal owner relations. They have argued they were prevented from selling. I do not believe this.
CHIEF
- This dilution wont get rid of them entirely anyway so not sure why you're so smug about it. Didnt you say on a different thread that dilution would not diminish the value of their shares anyway?
RS
I want the Trust to be a shareholder and support the other shareholders in their decsion and investments. In other words pull their weight as owners. I am a proud Welshmen and the Trust is Welsh but must graft and contribute like anyone else. It is not a charity. They need cash in the bank. The vilificcation of Huw Jenkins is a disgrace. The financial value of the Trusts shares notionally does not change as a result of dilution if the club stays as a mid tale championship club. However the Trusts share will miss out on the benefits of investment that they chose not to contribute to. Swansea will stay like Blackburn Rovers. Ideally the club will be sold in the premier league for the price Burnley is being sold £200m. Silversteins £5m at £50m will become £20m at Burnley prices. A clear £15m profit. I hope he gets it. The diluted say 15% share of £200m will be £30m. Every one happy. The investment if it is cnverted helps Swansea to suceed and increase the clubs vauation.
CHIEF
- ive made several points that you've ignored. Mainly that a random bloke putting money into the club who's going to want it back at some point is no good thing.
RS
I answered this point. Silverstein is a well regarded sports investor in the USA with a high ethical reputation. He is not a 'random bloke' and claims to have followed Swansea from afar and is putting his morey where his mouth is. He has already made a real difference and backing his judgement. He could make money he could lose money. He stated he would be hands on so must be following the actions of Mr Winter, Cooper and Scott. He hopefully has convinced the Trust to be more positive owners I regard his auditing much more important than that of the Trust because it is his own cash. He also has good relations with Levien and co. If the new £10m helps Swansea to the premier leagues directly or indirectly the Trust stand to make huge gains even if diluted and they agree to sell. As in 2016 the Trust had they sold would have made twice as much as the 10% shareholder that sold. [Post edited 28 Dec 2020 18:17]
|
- Surely self sufficiency is the aim which is the polar opposite of outside investment (let alone from characters we know little of). All those tasks we should be able to easily carry out from the club's own funds. Loans with interest need to be paid back yes (that's all these are currently). Investment may end up costing the club especially if the owners cannot get a price they want for selling the club. Winter said the Rodon deal would get us through this period. Don't try and justify the price as being normal. I can accept that he did it to get through Covid though. But it's way below value. I've always said the previous owners were great. We got some free transfers and loans, plus a guy cheap because he wouldn't sign a new contract. Good business but don't pretend it was a big reinvestment of funds. Im not doubting Covid has had a decrease on finances. But we should have had enougg money in over recent years to see this out.
- Currently the trust have good relations with Winter, hes said so himself and have collaborated on many of the clubs recent initiatives. Nope the owners did that themselves, we know they were complicit in their underhandedness in buying the club, they appointed Bradley and tried to sell Dan James in a very stuoid move that was obviously not needed. They've improved by appointing men that know what they are doing but don't pretend they've been good owners. Also remember the march was organised by a different body, not the trust. This selling of the trust's shares is a complete moot point. Youve got to have a buyer for them. None are forthcoming.
- The trust are pulling their weight as part owners. As you said yourself money isn't everything. They are grafting like everyone and unlike other club employees do not receive a wage. They could do with cash in the bank yes. Unfortunately the Americans and sellouts decided they would deny them the opportunity to get some. Not that this is relevant to this thread at all but Huws actions during the sale are undefendable. The next bit is what I've said. This is a gamble on promotion and this is all i see it as. Silverstein saw an opportunity that he can't lose on, but the club can. You dont describe the scenario in which we don't get promoted in the next few years.
- he would say all that though. To Swansea City football club he is a random man. Id rather he did his gambling elsewhere personally. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 19:52 - Dec 28 with 1095 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 19:10 - Dec 28 by Chief |
- Surely self sufficiency is the aim which is the polar opposite of outside investment (let alone from characters we know little of). All those tasks we should be able to easily carry out from the club's own funds. Loans with interest need to be paid back yes (that's all these are currently). Investment may end up costing the club especially if the owners cannot get a price they want for selling the club. Winter said the Rodon deal would get us through this period. Don't try and justify the price as being normal. I can accept that he did it to get through Covid though. But it's way below value. I've always said the previous owners were great. We got some free transfers and loans, plus a guy cheap because he wouldn't sign a new contract. Good business but don't pretend it was a big reinvestment of funds. Im not doubting Covid has had a decrease on finances. But we should have had enougg money in over recent years to see this out.
- Currently the trust have good relations with Winter, hes said so himself and have collaborated on many of the clubs recent initiatives. Nope the owners did that themselves, we know they were complicit in their underhandedness in buying the club, they appointed Bradley and tried to sell Dan James in a very stuoid move that was obviously not needed. They've improved by appointing men that know what they are doing but don't pretend they've been good owners. Also remember the march was organised by a different body, not the trust. This selling of the trust's shares is a complete moot point. Youve got to have a buyer for them. None are forthcoming.
- The trust are pulling their weight as part owners. As you said yourself money isn't everything. They are grafting like everyone and unlike other club employees do not receive a wage. They could do with cash in the bank yes. Unfortunately the Americans and sellouts decided they would deny them the opportunity to get some. Not that this is relevant to this thread at all but Huws actions during the sale are undefendable. The next bit is what I've said. This is a gamble on promotion and this is all i see it as. Silverstein saw an opportunity that he can't lose on, but the club can. You dont describe the scenario in which we don't get promoted in the next few years.
- he would say all that though. To Swansea City football club he is a random man. Id rather he did his gambling elsewhere personally. |
the Trust were never prevented from selling their shares. Buyer were circling after 2014 but the Trust took no measures to get a mandate from the membership. If they wanted to sell they would have got their ducks in a row then. This did not happen until 2017 under pressure. The US people actually waited for them and made the same or according to them a superior deal. The leadrship did not accept it. This was a clear mistake.
Silversteins and Leviens money is keeping the club going, keeping it competetive ,carrying out essential maintenance and keeping Swansea people in work. It obviously does not include you as you would prefer what is commonly called today a policy of "Austerity" with redundancies.
I believe the US peoe have learned from their mistakes. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 20:22 - Dec 28 with 1087 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 19:52 - Dec 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
the Trust were never prevented from selling their shares. Buyer were circling after 2014 but the Trust took no measures to get a mandate from the membership. If they wanted to sell they would have got their ducks in a row then. This did not happen until 2017 under pressure. The US people actually waited for them and made the same or according to them a superior deal. The leadrship did not accept it. This was a clear mistake.
Silversteins and Leviens money is keeping the club going, keeping it competetive ,carrying out essential maintenance and keeping Swansea people in work. It obviously does not include you as you would prefer what is commonly called today a policy of "Austerity" with redundancies.
I believe the US peoe have learned from their mistakes. |
- They were certainly not given the chance sell them when the sellouts did, when there was an actual buyer for shares in the club. I fail to see the relevance of this to this thread, but why would really want to sell prior the sale anyway, so moot point. No the Americans did not offer the same deal, if they did there'd be no case to answer for. And the Americans wouldn't bother with the hassle of going to court now, they'd settle.
- No, we sold our best, most promising asset at a low cost price to keep the club going. Winter said as much himself, shortly after saying we had no debt. Those domesday scenarios do not hold water in light of Winter's comments.
- They've learnt from some of their mistakes yes. But that's not relevant to this thread either. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 21:04 - Dec 28 with 1069 views | Garyjack |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 19:52 - Dec 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
the Trust were never prevented from selling their shares. Buyer were circling after 2014 but the Trust took no measures to get a mandate from the membership. If they wanted to sell they would have got their ducks in a row then. This did not happen until 2017 under pressure. The US people actually waited for them and made the same or according to them a superior deal. The leadrship did not accept it. This was a clear mistake.
Silversteins and Leviens money is keeping the club going, keeping it competetive ,carrying out essential maintenance and keeping Swansea people in work. It obviously does not include you as you would prefer what is commonly called today a policy of "Austerity" with redundancies.
I believe the US peoe have learned from their mistakes. |
Rubbish! The trust approached the Yanks early in the summer of 2016 in an effort to negotiate a sale of shares This was prior to completion of the deal with the sellouts, but they received no reply. The trust have documentation to prove this.
It's quite clear that the Yanks were far to busy colluding with the sellouts to shut the trust out all together by crossing the i's and t's with regards to obtaining the sellouts voting rights, rather than engaging with the trust regarding a share sale.
Those actions alone make it also quite clear that the Yanks had extended their finances to the limit, otherwise it surely would have been a total buy out of the sellouts shares. It was a 'take it or leave it' offer which should have set alarm bells ringing, did the sellouts care? did they hell!
Just to add. Jake Siverstein has not invested his own money as he doesn't have the personal wealth to do so. So who has put up the money? And what are the terms for repayment? Who else has now got their fingers in the pie? We don't know as apart from basic listings at Companies House, everything else is lodged in Delaware.
Quite frankly i'm amazed that any Swansea City fan with an ounce of sense cannot acknowledge these huge red flags.
I hope you stick around if the shit hits the fan, but it's pretty nailed on that you wont. Bring on the court case, and a Happy new year to you also. |  | | |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 12:34 - Dec 29 with 1005 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 21:04 - Dec 28 by Garyjack |
Rubbish! The trust approached the Yanks early in the summer of 2016 in an effort to negotiate a sale of shares This was prior to completion of the deal with the sellouts, but they received no reply. The trust have documentation to prove this.
It's quite clear that the Yanks were far to busy colluding with the sellouts to shut the trust out all together by crossing the i's and t's with regards to obtaining the sellouts voting rights, rather than engaging with the trust regarding a share sale.
Those actions alone make it also quite clear that the Yanks had extended their finances to the limit, otherwise it surely would have been a total buy out of the sellouts shares. It was a 'take it or leave it' offer which should have set alarm bells ringing, did the sellouts care? did they hell!
Just to add. Jake Siverstein has not invested his own money as he doesn't have the personal wealth to do so. So who has put up the money? And what are the terms for repayment? Who else has now got their fingers in the pie? We don't know as apart from basic listings at Companies House, everything else is lodged in Delaware.
Quite frankly i'm amazed that any Swansea City fan with an ounce of sense cannot acknowledge these huge red flags.
I hope you stick around if the shit hits the fan, but it's pretty nailed on that you wont. Bring on the court case, and a Happy new year to you also. |
The Trust were not in a position to sell their shares in 2016 as they had no mandate from the members. From what I have read they only asked to be kept informed and from press reports encouraged the buyers and sellers to get on with it to avoid harming the team developpment.
Buyers were circling in 2015 but the Trust failed to ask the views of their members regarding selling their shares after 2015. Indeed they said they did not want to sell. In the summer of 2016 they were not ready. Talks were held in regarding selling 2017 but got nowhere despite a mandate.
From press reports the Trust have spoken to Silverstein so why do you not ask the Trust I am sure they have all the details already and probably already agreed the terms. If they reject the CLN there will be serious consequences for the playing and support staff jobs I suspect.
I have argued consistently that the 21% is way too big for them to support and now they must accept dillution. It is good for them and the club. I have been making the same argument since 2013 and getting the same arguments against and very little support.
The shit has already hit the fan. Covid struck causing a £10m black hole and the 21% shareholder put nothing away for a rainy day.
Cheap new shares at a discounted price are now available and guess what, the Trust has no money to buy them. Thats their fault as it was entirely predictable. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 13:15 - Dec 29 with 998 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 12:34 - Dec 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust were not in a position to sell their shares in 2016 as they had no mandate from the members. From what I have read they only asked to be kept informed and from press reports encouraged the buyers and sellers to get on with it to avoid harming the team developpment.
Buyers were circling in 2015 but the Trust failed to ask the views of their members regarding selling their shares after 2015. Indeed they said they did not want to sell. In the summer of 2016 they were not ready. Talks were held in regarding selling 2017 but got nowhere despite a mandate.
From press reports the Trust have spoken to Silverstein so why do you not ask the Trust I am sure they have all the details already and probably already agreed the terms. If they reject the CLN there will be serious consequences for the playing and support staff jobs I suspect.
I have argued consistently that the 21% is way too big for them to support and now they must accept dillution. It is good for them and the club. I have been making the same argument since 2013 and getting the same arguments against and very little support.
The shit has already hit the fan. Covid struck causing a £10m black hole and the 21% shareholder put nothing away for a rainy day.
Cheap new shares at a discounted price are now available and guess what, the Trust has no money to buy them. Thats their fault as it was entirely predictable. |
- No mandate because there was no need to sell (despite your obsession on the subject) so no need to ballot the members. After material change in circumstances this would be different. Unfortunately as we when a potential buyer came the trust were excluded&when the cat eventually was out of the bag, the same terms were not offered to the trust. The de facto mandates you speak of were then delivered when it was clear exactly what had occurred.
- i don't remember the exact story you reference there but we know the trust were only informed of the sale when it was extremely advanced&powerless at that stage, so are you giving them credit for putting the welfare of the team before anything else even though they'd been wronged?
- those 2015 buyers you speak of bought no shares at all so moot point and were obviously not good for the club seeing as they could not stand up to scrutiny. Getting a mandate for something then would be worthless not knowing what deals, arrangements or owner make up would look like in future.
Not that any of the above is anything to do with the thread.
- Does that mean Silverstein has provided all the information? Its quite telling the documents are in Delaware. Is that by coincidence? Do we know Silverstein definitely wants this CLN agreed? What's the chances nothing gets done until the end of the season and he knows what division we'll be in?
- that's because you've made no compelling argument for dilution. Yes its fast cash. But at what price? Money from a random guy put in at no risk to himself that he's going to want back. If we don't go up what then?
- Hold on it was a 5mil deficit yesterday - how have you suddenly doubled it!? Are yoy forgetting Winters justification for selling Rodon cut price and saying we had no debt just a few months ago?
- Again, telling that the trust are taking steps to get said money for a rainy day but you oppose that at every step. Your bias knows no bounds.
- No mention of Jenkins and other shareholders? Does the same not apply? Where's their rainy day fund?
- Yes predictable once the Americans came and excluded the trust from selling at a fair price yea. Since then has there been any opportunities from elsewhere to sell their shares and gain money? No. So again a point scoring, gloating moot point.
Can't believe you're so blinkered and up the Americans arses not to see the dangers of this.
Edit - I'm not surprised at all actually. [Post edited 29 Dec 2020 13:18]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 14:00 - Dec 29 with 984 views | cockneyswan |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 13:15 - Dec 29 by Chief |
- No mandate because there was no need to sell (despite your obsession on the subject) so no need to ballot the members. After material change in circumstances this would be different. Unfortunately as we when a potential buyer came the trust were excluded&when the cat eventually was out of the bag, the same terms were not offered to the trust. The de facto mandates you speak of were then delivered when it was clear exactly what had occurred.
- i don't remember the exact story you reference there but we know the trust were only informed of the sale when it was extremely advanced&powerless at that stage, so are you giving them credit for putting the welfare of the team before anything else even though they'd been wronged?
- those 2015 buyers you speak of bought no shares at all so moot point and were obviously not good for the club seeing as they could not stand up to scrutiny. Getting a mandate for something then would be worthless not knowing what deals, arrangements or owner make up would look like in future.
Not that any of the above is anything to do with the thread.
- Does that mean Silverstein has provided all the information? Its quite telling the documents are in Delaware. Is that by coincidence? Do we know Silverstein definitely wants this CLN agreed? What's the chances nothing gets done until the end of the season and he knows what division we'll be in?
- that's because you've made no compelling argument for dilution. Yes its fast cash. But at what price? Money from a random guy put in at no risk to himself that he's going to want back. If we don't go up what then?
- Hold on it was a 5mil deficit yesterday - how have you suddenly doubled it!? Are yoy forgetting Winters justification for selling Rodon cut price and saying we had no debt just a few months ago?
- Again, telling that the trust are taking steps to get said money for a rainy day but you oppose that at every step. Your bias knows no bounds.
- No mention of Jenkins and other shareholders? Does the same not apply? Where's their rainy day fund?
- Yes predictable once the Americans came and excluded the trust from selling at a fair price yea. Since then has there been any opportunities from elsewhere to sell their shares and gain money? No. So again a point scoring, gloating moot point.
Can't believe you're so blinkered and up the Americans arses not to see the dangers of this.
Edit - I'm not surprised at all actually. [Post edited 29 Dec 2020 13:18]
|
It’s good that at least some of our fanbase can see that our club is being used as a casino game with the player using our money as his stake, he can’t lose. As was said earlier go gamble so where else! Thanks. |  | | |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 14:27 - Dec 29 with 981 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 13:15 - Dec 29 by Chief |
- No mandate because there was no need to sell (despite your obsession on the subject) so no need to ballot the members. After material change in circumstances this would be different. Unfortunately as we when a potential buyer came the trust were excluded&when the cat eventually was out of the bag, the same terms were not offered to the trust. The de facto mandates you speak of were then delivered when it was clear exactly what had occurred.
- i don't remember the exact story you reference there but we know the trust were only informed of the sale when it was extremely advanced&powerless at that stage, so are you giving them credit for putting the welfare of the team before anything else even though they'd been wronged?
- those 2015 buyers you speak of bought no shares at all so moot point and were obviously not good for the club seeing as they could not stand up to scrutiny. Getting a mandate for something then would be worthless not knowing what deals, arrangements or owner make up would look like in future.
Not that any of the above is anything to do with the thread.
- Does that mean Silverstein has provided all the information? Its quite telling the documents are in Delaware. Is that by coincidence? Do we know Silverstein definitely wants this CLN agreed? What's the chances nothing gets done until the end of the season and he knows what division we'll be in?
- that's because you've made no compelling argument for dilution. Yes its fast cash. But at what price? Money from a random guy put in at no risk to himself that he's going to want back. If we don't go up what then?
- Hold on it was a 5mil deficit yesterday - how have you suddenly doubled it!? Are yoy forgetting Winters justification for selling Rodon cut price and saying we had no debt just a few months ago?
- Again, telling that the trust are taking steps to get said money for a rainy day but you oppose that at every step. Your bias knows no bounds.
- No mention of Jenkins and other shareholders? Does the same not apply? Where's their rainy day fund?
- Yes predictable once the Americans came and excluded the trust from selling at a fair price yea. Since then has there been any opportunities from elsewhere to sell their shares and gain money? No. So again a point scoring, gloating moot point.
Can't believe you're so blinkered and up the Americans arses not to see the dangers of this.
Edit - I'm not surprised at all actually. [Post edited 29 Dec 2020 13:18]
|
As I said buyers were circling in 2015. There were at least two other intersted parties in the wings. If the Trust were minded to sell they would have got their ducks in order in readiness. With offers likely to come in why did they not consult their members?
Their Board member said empahitcally they did not want to sell. In fact he stated they would never sell. No talk of 'nest eggs' no talk of sharing in investment no 'rainy day fund'. No coherient strategy.
The Trust were powerless to get involved in the sale as a result of their own constitution and their own lack of preparedness. They had no mandate until 2017. Even then major figures were against selling.
The 2015 potentail buyers wanted to buy 30% of the club from press reports and were rejected by all I suspect as they were not offering enough money for them to become the biggest shareholder. This has been represented as the Trust finding them out in due diligence. I do not believe that particular fairytale.
What information Silverstein has given the Trust is unknown. As i understand it they must have had discussions with the majority owners and Mr S and come to an agreement on the terms. It will be revealed in the next meeting presumably.
Mr Silverstein is not a random guy. He is on the Board of Swansea city and has got there by giving the club a substantial amount of cash to help the club. The terms of his cash injection must have been agreed by the Trust. He will almost certainly become a significant club shareholder. If this happens the Trust will have to be diluted. The compelling case for dilutiion is that the club will otherwise have to pay the loan back at a prescribed time with serious consequences for the staff and state of the club's infrastructure. (Pitch and steelwork condition for example).
The CLN came befoe the Rodon sale. The sale occured in a depressed market and SCFC benefitted from that depressed market themselves bring in a top qualitty older replacement and two very good prospects.
The steps the Trust are taking to build a nest egg are still unclear. The Trust have been working on this for about 3 years with little sign of any progress. I suspect the cut and run option is not very realistic and the Trust will have to reject conflict and become a more positive shareholder with better strrategic thinking. In reality both the Trust and US owners and the remaining sellers have a vested cash interest in selling the club to a moneybags Asian owner in the Premier league for £200m like Burnley. Will all know Burnley are at high risk the moment Dyche says he has had enough. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 15:18 - Dec 29 with 972 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 14:27 - Dec 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As I said buyers were circling in 2015. There were at least two other intersted parties in the wings. If the Trust were minded to sell they would have got their ducks in order in readiness. With offers likely to come in why did they not consult their members?
Their Board member said empahitcally they did not want to sell. In fact he stated they would never sell. No talk of 'nest eggs' no talk of sharing in investment no 'rainy day fund'. No coherient strategy.
The Trust were powerless to get involved in the sale as a result of their own constitution and their own lack of preparedness. They had no mandate until 2017. Even then major figures were against selling.
The 2015 potentail buyers wanted to buy 30% of the club from press reports and were rejected by all I suspect as they were not offering enough money for them to become the biggest shareholder. This has been represented as the Trust finding them out in due diligence. I do not believe that particular fairytale.
What information Silverstein has given the Trust is unknown. As i understand it they must have had discussions with the majority owners and Mr S and come to an agreement on the terms. It will be revealed in the next meeting presumably.
Mr Silverstein is not a random guy. He is on the Board of Swansea city and has got there by giving the club a substantial amount of cash to help the club. The terms of his cash injection must have been agreed by the Trust. He will almost certainly become a significant club shareholder. If this happens the Trust will have to be diluted. The compelling case for dilutiion is that the club will otherwise have to pay the loan back at a prescribed time with serious consequences for the staff and state of the club's infrastructure. (Pitch and steelwork condition for example).
The CLN came befoe the Rodon sale. The sale occured in a depressed market and SCFC benefitted from that depressed market themselves bring in a top qualitty older replacement and two very good prospects.
The steps the Trust are taking to build a nest egg are still unclear. The Trust have been working on this for about 3 years with little sign of any progress. I suspect the cut and run option is not very realistic and the Trust will have to reject conflict and become a more positive shareholder with better strrategic thinking. In reality both the Trust and US owners and the remaining sellers have a vested cash interest in selling the club to a moneybags Asian owner in the Premier league for £200m like Burnley. Will all know Burnley are at high risk the moment Dyche says he has had enough. |
- No offers did come in and we knew those buyers who potentially got close to bidding for some shares in the club were thankfully scared off.
- The member himself has come on here and stated that he never said that they'd never sell. And anyway why would they have wanted to? That's a perfectly coherent strategy. What wouldn't be would have been to hawk the shares off to any Tom Dick or Harry like you seem to suggest.
- They had no mandate because they didn't know how the ownership would look because they were excluded from the sale, so couldn't present any facts with which to allow the members to decide. I can fully understand why some are against selling. Its a tough decision.
- Up to you what you believe, telling again though that they didn't invest when the trust were informed at an early stage of interest, and when the next interest came, the sellouts weren't as keen to inform the trust? I think we can read between the lines of what occurred. But fine, carry on your blinkered view.
- How do you know they've come to any agreement on terms? As a 21% shareholder couldn't the trust just be outvoted on the club being loaned this money or being diluted?
- He is a completely random bloke that not even you had heard of before he magically appeared and appointed to the board in an unknown capacity. He got there by gambling his own money in the risk free hope of getting it back and more at an as of yet unspecified point in the future. Yes dilution would mean the trust&Morgan&Huw would get diluted. That's not good for the club. It means a club the Americans bought as a Premier league club for 70odd mill, has now cost them another 5 mill and another guy has chucked in another 5 mill, but the club's in the division below. This gamble could pay off if we go up. But what if we don't? You've conveniently ignored that possibility.
- The Rodon sale was definitely on the horizon by the time this CLN was touted&we don't actually know if or when Silversteins money went in to clubs accounts. You even stated at the time this money was to allow us to get the bid higher but that turned out to be nonsense. Depressed market or not, it was a poor sale price. We brought in loans and frees. Don't dress it up as something it wasn't.
- Why do you say there's no progress? Members get regular updates and you know full well that there's been progress due to your increased propaganda posts. I know you are fully aware that court action could see the trust acquire a decent sum of money. What currently suggests to you that the trust aren't being a constructive shareholder? I notice you choose to ignore Winter's quotes when they do not suit your agenda.
- 200mill sale that hasn't actually happened yet you mean? That depends on what any new Asian owners bring to the table (at the end of the day its Swansea City football club that matters - not whether the Americans can make a profit which you seem suspiciously obsessed about) and what shares the trust still hold at that point if any. [Post edited 29 Dec 2020 15:23]
| |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 17:19 - Dec 29 with 950 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 15:18 - Dec 29 by Chief |
- No offers did come in and we knew those buyers who potentially got close to bidding for some shares in the club were thankfully scared off.
- The member himself has come on here and stated that he never said that they'd never sell. And anyway why would they have wanted to? That's a perfectly coherent strategy. What wouldn't be would have been to hawk the shares off to any Tom Dick or Harry like you seem to suggest.
- They had no mandate because they didn't know how the ownership would look because they were excluded from the sale, so couldn't present any facts with which to allow the members to decide. I can fully understand why some are against selling. Its a tough decision.
- Up to you what you believe, telling again though that they didn't invest when the trust were informed at an early stage of interest, and when the next interest came, the sellouts weren't as keen to inform the trust? I think we can read between the lines of what occurred. But fine, carry on your blinkered view.
- How do you know they've come to any agreement on terms? As a 21% shareholder couldn't the trust just be outvoted on the club being loaned this money or being diluted?
- He is a completely random bloke that not even you had heard of before he magically appeared and appointed to the board in an unknown capacity. He got there by gambling his own money in the risk free hope of getting it back and more at an as of yet unspecified point in the future. Yes dilution would mean the trust&Morgan&Huw would get diluted. That's not good for the club. It means a club the Americans bought as a Premier league club for 70odd mill, has now cost them another 5 mill and another guy has chucked in another 5 mill, but the club's in the division below. This gamble could pay off if we go up. But what if we don't? You've conveniently ignored that possibility.
- The Rodon sale was definitely on the horizon by the time this CLN was touted&we don't actually know if or when Silversteins money went in to clubs accounts. You even stated at the time this money was to allow us to get the bid higher but that turned out to be nonsense. Depressed market or not, it was a poor sale price. We brought in loans and frees. Don't dress it up as something it wasn't.
- Why do you say there's no progress? Members get regular updates and you know full well that there's been progress due to your increased propaganda posts. I know you are fully aware that court action could see the trust acquire a decent sum of money. What currently suggests to you that the trust aren't being a constructive shareholder? I notice you choose to ignore Winter's quotes when they do not suit your agenda.
- 200mill sale that hasn't actually happened yet you mean? That depends on what any new Asian owners bring to the table (at the end of the day its Swansea City football club that matters - not whether the Americans can make a profit which you seem suspiciously obsessed about) and what shares the trust still hold at that point if any. [Post edited 29 Dec 2020 15:23]
|
The Trust never had a sensible strategy. Their stragey was to increase their holding to 25% while holding no cash. A perfect power with no responsibility scenario. Lions led by mice.
The Trust never put their shares up for sale 2002-2016 and never had a mandate to sell in that period. This would have discourage any potential buyer as their unpreparedness and poor communication skils spells complications. Even with a mandate it is probable they went into talks disunited and not committed to a sale. I have watched the Wrexham Trust leader speaking. Slick and smooth. Non of the Swansea Trust people can hold a match to him.
I believe the Trust must have already come to an agreement over the CLN. This appears to be a condition of this method of investing which I have provided for you for your understanding.
Mr Silverstein is a well know sports investor with other financial interrsts . One of his fellow sports investor in Houston Dynamo is Oscar De la Hoya owner of Golden Boy promotions and stellar Mexican ex boxer.
Investors can make money out of Swansea even if it is not promoted. To do this you must by discounted shares in the Champoinship and wait for inflation to occur. This is what is happening soon. You of course lose out if you follow a strategy of holding no significant cash. You buy disounted shares at a club valuation of £40m and sell the club for £60m like Derby County. That is a 50% profit.
Silverstein Levien etc have bought cheap and developed their holding in various assets,. Levien has built a brand new stadium for DC united for example. These are no asset strippers.
The CLN was in place before the Rodon sale. There was no guarentee there would be a taker in the depressed market. Had Spurs stuck to their £7m valuation what was Winter to do? One punter on here suggested Swansea would be lucky to get £5m. I have a feeling Latibeaudiere has better tools than big Joe and will be a better player.
£5m has already gone into the accounts as proven by the Companies House paperwork. This is appaently the Levien share of the CLN.
I have produced convincing economic arguments that the intial legal plan was ill founded. This includes the inflation that has occured since 2016. Gains from a full force share purchase are very small after deductions. The Trust has shown no aptitude for sensible investing getting a measley return on their own cash. I do not see in the "Constructive shareholder handbook" anywhere that is says 'threaten to take fellow investors to court'.
The £200m Burnley sale is close to being completed. The Trust leaders must make a decision soon whether to try to cash in £10m -£12m after deductions and tax in a highly risky court case and leave the club forever, or stay on friendly terms and go for a return to the Premier league and sign a Tag/ drag on clause with their US and Welsh partners. If the other sell the club for £60m like Derby they will still get their £12m. If the club is sold like Burnley they will be worth £35m even after dilution. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 18:07 - Dec 29 with 940 views | Garyjack |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 12:34 - Dec 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust were not in a position to sell their shares in 2016 as they had no mandate from the members. From what I have read they only asked to be kept informed and from press reports encouraged the buyers and sellers to get on with it to avoid harming the team developpment.
Buyers were circling in 2015 but the Trust failed to ask the views of their members regarding selling their shares after 2015. Indeed they said they did not want to sell. In the summer of 2016 they were not ready. Talks were held in regarding selling 2017 but got nowhere despite a mandate.
From press reports the Trust have spoken to Silverstein so why do you not ask the Trust I am sure they have all the details already and probably already agreed the terms. If they reject the CLN there will be serious consequences for the playing and support staff jobs I suspect.
I have argued consistently that the 21% is way too big for them to support and now they must accept dillution. It is good for them and the club. I have been making the same argument since 2013 and getting the same arguments against and very little support.
The shit has already hit the fan. Covid struck causing a £10m black hole and the 21% shareholder put nothing away for a rainy day.
Cheap new shares at a discounted price are now available and guess what, the Trust has no money to buy them. Thats their fault as it was entirely predictable. |
Re: Legal action by PSumbler » 23 Nov 2020 21:13
"This feels like we are going round in circles over a subject that is a few years old.
The Trust - the day after we were told of the interest of the Americans - wrote to all other shareholders at the time to say that we may be interested in selling and could we see the terms. I know this to be true as the letter had my name at the bottom of it.
We made attempts to be part of the sale but were blanked by the Americans at almost every opportunity - something Mr Levien admitted to. I know this to be true as he was sat next to me at the time and it is on a recording of the event. So for anyone to say that we always repeated we would never sell is wrong. For anyone to say we never attempted to be part of the sale is wrong.
As per the advice from our legal team post the sale we tried to work with the owners and reach a resolution. We agreed in the first season to postpone chats until the end of the season and opened them within two hours of the season ending. We got a deal - a far from ideal deal - but one we agreed to promote and recommend (for all the wrongs that people will say) to try and bring the matter to a close.
After the vote closed and the deal was approved there was a change in terms. The change was one that the Americans did not think had changed but it highlighted that it was a difference to the one that we recommended. And for that reason I thought it signalled a complete breakdown in relationship. This was not the view of the board and because of that I tendered my resignation as the Trust has to be led by someone who believes in the direction it is taking. At that point I did not so for the good of the organisation I stood down.
The second Chairman - Will - resigned based on abuse he got online. Nothing to do with Trust infighting. The Americans pulled out of the deal because relegation was coming again nothing to do with infighting. And because they pulled out the Trust pursued legal action again of which the first stage was mediation.
The mediation never happened because the two main representatives of the hedge fund - Levien and Kaplan - wanted to send representatives and it was a view of the Trust that no representative would have the authority to negotiate so therefore mediation would prove to be a waste of everyone's time. We were happy - no matter what has been said - to attend with the right people. Indeed, some of us had already booked necessary time off work to attend the mediation.
This is all information in the public domain.
As has been said the likely outcome of the Trust winning a court case is the purchase of the Trust shares but - as has also been said - other outcomes are possible and will depend on the judge as and when it comes to court.
There are people on the forums - always have been - who are fed information by those who will just want to tell a slightly different story (Remember Rob Davies saying that we had turned down £20m offer for the Trust shares) because it suits them to tell that story. All I suggest is that you remember a few things
1. No individual within the Trust will benefit from winning any legal action nor from any money made from the sale of the shares
2. It is only the Trust out of all current and previous shareholders who only have the interests of the football club at heart
3. All of this would have been avoided had the Trust been invited to the table at the very start of the discussion which you need to remember started several months before it became publicly available information.
4. Nobody ever resented the selling shareholders making their money from their hard work and "investment" but to do it at the expense of the supporters is - frankly - unforgivable."
Now then, the Chairman of the trust at the time has made this public at a time when legal action is on going, so please can you stop repeating these falsehoods over and over again! | | | |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 18:31 - Dec 29 with 933 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 17:19 - Dec 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust never had a sensible strategy. Their stragey was to increase their holding to 25% while holding no cash. A perfect power with no responsibility scenario. Lions led by mice.
The Trust never put their shares up for sale 2002-2016 and never had a mandate to sell in that period. This would have discourage any potential buyer as their unpreparedness and poor communication skils spells complications. Even with a mandate it is probable they went into talks disunited and not committed to a sale. I have watched the Wrexham Trust leader speaking. Slick and smooth. Non of the Swansea Trust people can hold a match to him.
I believe the Trust must have already come to an agreement over the CLN. This appears to be a condition of this method of investing which I have provided for you for your understanding.
Mr Silverstein is a well know sports investor with other financial interrsts . One of his fellow sports investor in Houston Dynamo is Oscar De la Hoya owner of Golden Boy promotions and stellar Mexican ex boxer.
Investors can make money out of Swansea even if it is not promoted. To do this you must by discounted shares in the Champoinship and wait for inflation to occur. This is what is happening soon. You of course lose out if you follow a strategy of holding no significant cash. You buy disounted shares at a club valuation of £40m and sell the club for £60m like Derby County. That is a 50% profit.
Silverstein Levien etc have bought cheap and developed their holding in various assets,. Levien has built a brand new stadium for DC united for example. These are no asset strippers.
The CLN was in place before the Rodon sale. There was no guarentee there would be a taker in the depressed market. Had Spurs stuck to their £7m valuation what was Winter to do? One punter on here suggested Swansea would be lucky to get £5m. I have a feeling Latibeaudiere has better tools than big Joe and will be a better player.
£5m has already gone into the accounts as proven by the Companies House paperwork. This is appaently the Levien share of the CLN.
I have produced convincing economic arguments that the intial legal plan was ill founded. This includes the inflation that has occured since 2016. Gains from a full force share purchase are very small after deductions. The Trust has shown no aptitude for sensible investing getting a measley return on their own cash. I do not see in the "Constructive shareholder handbook" anywhere that is says 'threaten to take fellow investors to court'.
The £200m Burnley sale is close to being completed. The Trust leaders must make a decision soon whether to try to cash in £10m -£12m after deductions and tax in a highly risky court case and leave the club forever, or stay on friendly terms and go for a return to the Premier league and sign a Tag/ drag on clause with their US and Welsh partners. If the other sell the club for £60m like Derby they will still get their £12m. If the club is sold like Burnley they will be worth £35m even after dilution. |
- Well you can ridicule all you want - as a supporters trust and you seem deftly incapable of recognising that's what they are that is a fantastic aim. They've got to 21% so credit due to them&the likes of Mel Nurse.
- Why would the supporters trust of the football club have wanted to sell their shares during that period? Why would they seek a mandate for that?
- Is there any evidence of those random unwarranted digs? It is indeed the other parties that do not answer requests for information, court summons' and do not communicate. Some of them even went to the extremely unprofessional step of doctoring meeting minutes. Why no criticism of that?
- So you're saying every shareholder must agree to this CLN or something? Remember currently it's just loans. Which could mean no agreement.
- Have you looked into De La Hoya's recent business dealings? The man is a shambles. That does not reassure me at all!
- its going to take a long time for our club in the championship to get to a value that they'll want to sell at. Plus there's the matter of finding a buyer.
- DC United are terrible under their leadership. You know this.
- If there's no taker do not enter the bloody marketplace then! It's not adding is it!? If we've got this 10mill the Americans so generously sent our way to apparently tide the club over during this time dont sell for cheap. You cannot possibly square that circle. Latibeaudiere was brought in on a free, there's no way his transfer. Are you telling me we needed to sell Rodon for 11mill plus get in debt to the tune of another 10mill to bring in Latibeaudiere!? Hes good and will be decent but he's a lot shorter so your tools point is just silly.
- The Rodon sale was on the horizon all along. Don't be so nieve.
- Inflation is no excuse for what occurred. Legal action could remedy that. Inflation is a desperate cop out.
- Burnley are a lot different to us. Obvious differences.
- oh god here we again with the investment nonsense. The trust is a trust. Not an investment hedgefund. They need cash at short notice to pay expenses and carry out admin etc. They cannot tie up funds to high interest accounts. They've got enough on their plate acting as what they are - a supporters trust, not playing markets.
- the case according to an independent QC is a good one and those costs are from your fantasies. And you know full well that doesnt mean leaving the club forever. Lots of assumptions in there about buyers coming out of the woodwork. Is there even definitely a tag on clause? The yanks have excluded them before, they could do it again. And of course what you describe is what the trust could gain if the case doesn't result in the trust selling shares. So in a sense its win win isn't it? Lose the case, sit tight and in a few years 'do a Derby' | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 18:37 - Dec 29 with 932 views | onehunglow |
All in all,a goddam mess of which Joe Public has no idea ;he simply wants the club to do well.
With all our on line experts ,it makes you wonder just htf we got into this mess.
We have forensic accountants on tap and barristers too just watching this unfold.
Good business for our Barrister friends [Post edited 29 Dec 2020 18:40]
|  |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 19:52 - Dec 29 with 907 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 14:00 - Dec 29 by cockneyswan |
It’s good that at least some of our fanbase can see that our club is being used as a casino game with the player using our money as his stake, he can’t lose. As was said earlier go gamble so where else! Thanks. |
Football club ownership is like platnum mining the highest risk investment category anyone can make. No registered financial advisor would recommend even Manchester United as a minor holding. They would have their licence withdrawn if they did.
It is super high risk. Going to court adds another level of risk on top of that. A supe super high risk.
The Trust board member stated in 2015 they would never sell. In 2016 they stated selling any of their holding was "not their preference". They never talked of selling at all 2002-2016 infact they bought extra shares not sold any. When a buyer appeared even then they were somewhat indecisive stating they "might be open to selling" and ended up later being unable to "de risk" and get off the roulette table over minor clauses.
These are the true gamblers and the beautiful thing was they are gambling with other people' s money not their own. If they lost it all hardly anyone would complain. Just some odd bloke from up the Neath Valley. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 20:09 - Dec 29 with 900 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 19:52 - Dec 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Football club ownership is like platnum mining the highest risk investment category anyone can make. No registered financial advisor would recommend even Manchester United as a minor holding. They would have their licence withdrawn if they did.
It is super high risk. Going to court adds another level of risk on top of that. A supe super high risk.
The Trust board member stated in 2015 they would never sell. In 2016 they stated selling any of their holding was "not their preference". They never talked of selling at all 2002-2016 infact they bought extra shares not sold any. When a buyer appeared even then they were somewhat indecisive stating they "might be open to selling" and ended up later being unable to "de risk" and get off the roulette table over minor clauses.
These are the true gamblers and the beautiful thing was they are gambling with other people' s money not their own. If they lost it all hardly anyone would complain. Just some odd bloke from up the Neath Valley. |
- There's no risk on Silverstein though. He literally can't lose as stands.
- How does going to court high risk? By your logic if the court rules that the trust don't sell their shares they sit tight and their old friend inflation comes to the rescue!
- Dunno why you keep going on about this. It doesn't matter one iota what you think the trust said. No matter what the Americans and sellouts should have included them. Lots of people in all walks of life say things aren't for sale. You never know for certain unless you make a bid or enquire at that moment in time. Especially knowing that a huge change on circumstances could change the reluctant sellers mindset. You don't go into a negotiation saying i definitely want to sell. You should know that.
- What a ridiculous thing to say. Knowing your record you'd be delighted if they lost money. Not sure how you think they will do that mind. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 13:21 - Dec 30 with 858 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 20:09 - Dec 29 by Chief |
- There's no risk on Silverstein though. He literally can't lose as stands.
- How does going to court high risk? By your logic if the court rules that the trust don't sell their shares they sit tight and their old friend inflation comes to the rescue!
- Dunno why you keep going on about this. It doesn't matter one iota what you think the trust said. No matter what the Americans and sellouts should have included them. Lots of people in all walks of life say things aren't for sale. You never know for certain unless you make a bid or enquire at that moment in time. Especially knowing that a huge change on circumstances could change the reluctant sellers mindset. You don't go into a negotiation saying i definitely want to sell. You should know that.
- What a ridiculous thing to say. Knowing your record you'd be delighted if they lost money. Not sure how you think they will do that mind. |
There is massive risk on Silverstein. If there is no risk why is there no Swansea n Welsh no British investors?. If the club goes bust he loses his money. His money and that of Levien are saving Swansea jobs and value and potential for growth in the Trust's shares.
I get the feeling you are not an exepet on court matters. The Judge could order the Club or the other owners to buy the Trusts shares at current market value if he is not convinced of their case. This would see a measley £3m going into the bank after deductions. Its a massive risk. It is being considerd because it is nobodies personal cash.
The buyer was not minded to persuade the seller to sell and the seller was not minded to persuade the buyer to buy so it did not happen. A straight forward scenario. The Trust stated they "may" be interested in selling. The talks in 2017 proved they were not keen.
When I sell my car I am pretty sure I want to sell it. I do not put an advert in Autotrader saying. "I am prepared to consider selling my car". I say "my car is up for sale". If I put he former statement in I would not expect the phone to ring. There are enough timewasters around as it is.
The Trust cannot lose money. They only ever invested £200,000 and £20,000 of that came from one local business benefactor. They are probably now worth around £8m. They have lost £13m in valuation terms. [Post edited 30 Dec 2020 13:28]
| |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 13:46 - Dec 30 with 853 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 13:21 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is massive risk on Silverstein. If there is no risk why is there no Swansea n Welsh no British investors?. If the club goes bust he loses his money. His money and that of Levien are saving Swansea jobs and value and potential for growth in the Trust's shares.
I get the feeling you are not an exepet on court matters. The Judge could order the Club or the other owners to buy the Trusts shares at current market value if he is not convinced of their case. This would see a measley £3m going into the bank after deductions. Its a massive risk. It is being considerd because it is nobodies personal cash.
The buyer was not minded to persuade the seller to sell and the seller was not minded to persuade the buyer to buy so it did not happen. A straight forward scenario. The Trust stated they "may" be interested in selling. The talks in 2017 proved they were not keen.
When I sell my car I am pretty sure I want to sell it. I do not put an advert in Autotrader saying. "I am prepared to consider selling my car". I say "my car is up for sale". If I put he former statement in I would not expect the phone to ring. There are enough timewasters around as it is.
The Trust cannot lose money. They only ever invested £200,000 and £20,000 of that came from one local business benefactor. They are probably now worth around £8m. They have lost £13m in valuation terms. [Post edited 30 Dec 2020 13:28]
|
- i dunno, maybe no one with 5milion to throw in? Its a loan - as far we know he could take it back tomorrow. With interest. Of course he could convert it to shares if we get promoted when his outlay will be worth more than 5mill. He literally has no risk. We sell way too many players for the club to bust. Our chief executive stated only recently the club is operating fine and not in debt. This job creation scheme stuff is nonsense.
- Random patronising dig there with no basis - You're making a habit of that - getting desperate? Nothing is certain in a court case maybe the judge will rule on line of one of these domesday scenarios you like to peddle. However a QC advising on the case suggests otherwise. Why are you ignoring that? Its the trusts and members cash. Why do you say its nobodies?
- Such talks (and the fact that the Americans didn't bid when they were buying other shares in the club proves more conclusively that they weren't keen on buying the trusts shares. Their failure to attempt to find a remedy out of court up this point emphasises that further.
- If you like the car and don't particularly want to sell it, but something occurs that could cause that car to not operate as you would like, selling is obviously something you'll need to consider. It would have taken the Americans minimal time to send a bid purely to dot the i's and cross the t's. If they were so convinced the trust didn't want to sell, there's no harm in this course of action.
- in your words any deal with a mark up of these magnitude can never be seen as a bad deal. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 14:09 - Dec 30 with 850 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 13:46 - Dec 30 by Chief |
- i dunno, maybe no one with 5milion to throw in? Its a loan - as far we know he could take it back tomorrow. With interest. Of course he could convert it to shares if we get promoted when his outlay will be worth more than 5mill. He literally has no risk. We sell way too many players for the club to bust. Our chief executive stated only recently the club is operating fine and not in debt. This job creation scheme stuff is nonsense.
- Random patronising dig there with no basis - You're making a habit of that - getting desperate? Nothing is certain in a court case maybe the judge will rule on line of one of these domesday scenarios you like to peddle. However a QC advising on the case suggests otherwise. Why are you ignoring that? Its the trusts and members cash. Why do you say its nobodies?
- Such talks (and the fact that the Americans didn't bid when they were buying other shares in the club proves more conclusively that they weren't keen on buying the trusts shares. Their failure to attempt to find a remedy out of court up this point emphasises that further.
- If you like the car and don't particularly want to sell it, but something occurs that could cause that car to not operate as you would like, selling is obviously something you'll need to consider. It would have taken the Americans minimal time to send a bid purely to dot the i's and cross the t's. If they were so convinced the trust didn't want to sell, there's no harm in this course of action.
- in your words any deal with a mark up of these magnitude can never be seen as a bad deal. |
Silverstein is on the board. If he took the loan back along with Levien it would give Winters serious problems, I believe that would men redundancies. It is my belief. He will convert it to shares whether the club gets propmoted otr not. I have explained that he can make money to you with out promotion. It involves taking risks and relying on football inflation and currency variations. I have not talked job creation nonscence. In fact I have ot talked job creation at all . I have talked of job retention.
You infered that going to court is a 'risk free' move. I questioned your knowledge which justifies you saying such things. Not patronising at all. You are not an expert. You are buying into the Trust's "we have no alternative " narrative which I have always regarded as deeply suspect. The narrative was used to presuade the members to vote for leagal action prefered by the Trust leadership at that time.
There is one huge hole in that nonscence. "Burnley are close to a £200m sale of their club". This would value the Trusts shares if the club was back in the PL at a whopping £42m. Even if the Trust are diluted to say a 17% holding it is still £35m roughly 3 x that recovered from a 100% win in court due to the crippling fees and costs.
The US people spent 4 months discussing the buying of the Trust shares but go nowhere. This demonstrated some form of commitment. Your car talk is furrther gobbly gook Im afraid. Excuses of someone that is predending to want to sell when he does not want to.
Seling shares in 2016 was a complete 'no brianer'. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 14:37 - Dec 30 with 843 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 14:09 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Silverstein is on the board. If he took the loan back along with Levien it would give Winters serious problems, I believe that would men redundancies. It is my belief. He will convert it to shares whether the club gets propmoted otr not. I have explained that he can make money to you with out promotion. It involves taking risks and relying on football inflation and currency variations. I have not talked job creation nonscence. In fact I have ot talked job creation at all . I have talked of job retention.
You infered that going to court is a 'risk free' move. I questioned your knowledge which justifies you saying such things. Not patronising at all. You are not an expert. You are buying into the Trust's "we have no alternative " narrative which I have always regarded as deeply suspect. The narrative was used to presuade the members to vote for leagal action prefered by the Trust leadership at that time.
There is one huge hole in that nonscence. "Burnley are close to a £200m sale of their club". This would value the Trusts shares if the club was back in the PL at a whopping £42m. Even if the Trust are diluted to say a 17% holding it is still £35m roughly 3 x that recovered from a 100% win in court due to the crippling fees and costs.
The US people spent 4 months discussing the buying of the Trust shares but go nowhere. This demonstrated some form of commitment. Your car talk is furrther gobbly gook Im afraid. Excuses of someone that is predending to want to sell when he does not want to.
Seling shares in 2016 was a complete 'no brianer'. |
- So what if hes on the board. He could walk away from that as quickly as he appeared and was appointed onto it. There we are - he stands to make money even if we don't go up. This is as risk free as it comes. The club has had enough income of its own to keep staff in jobs (some of whom will / are on furlough). To suggest otherwise is complete scaremongering and finding excuses to justify these Americans using our football club as a vehicle for their hustles.
- it is risk free by your logic - even by your most negative predictions they stand to make a huge mark up on their investment in the event of the court forcing a sale. I'm really not buying into it - there's always options. This is best one. Great business by your logic. Ive formulated my own opinion based in the facts. Are you a legal expert?
- you questioned my knowledge based on what though? Is anything ive said at odds with the reality of the situation? Admittedly i am no legal expert but i do take heed of legal experts such as the QC.
- Couple of things that you fail to ever acknowledge when you bring up Burnley. They own their stadium. They are in the Premier league. They haven't yet been taken over. If they are on the verge of being bought they have also found people willing to part with cash. None of that applies to us.
- Sounds wonderful though, the trust can go to court and if they don't end up selling their shares there, they've got this Burnley affect to look forward to in future. Excellent stuff.
- Yes the trust also showed rather large commitment and demonstrated the fact that under the right conditions they could have sold their shares.
- you brought up the car analogy, i just applied the reality and complexities of the actual situation. Unlike you. Im not pretending at all, in an ideal world, just like your car i wouldn't have wanted the trust to sell.
- Selling them to who in 2016? Its only a no brainer if it suits the seller. The Americans obviously wouldn't / couldn't offer such a package. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 15:28 - Dec 30 with 838 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 14:37 - Dec 30 by Chief |
- So what if hes on the board. He could walk away from that as quickly as he appeared and was appointed onto it. There we are - he stands to make money even if we don't go up. This is as risk free as it comes. The club has had enough income of its own to keep staff in jobs (some of whom will / are on furlough). To suggest otherwise is complete scaremongering and finding excuses to justify these Americans using our football club as a vehicle for their hustles.
- it is risk free by your logic - even by your most negative predictions they stand to make a huge mark up on their investment in the event of the court forcing a sale. I'm really not buying into it - there's always options. This is best one. Great business by your logic. Ive formulated my own opinion based in the facts. Are you a legal expert?
- you questioned my knowledge based on what though? Is anything ive said at odds with the reality of the situation? Admittedly i am no legal expert but i do take heed of legal experts such as the QC.
- Couple of things that you fail to ever acknowledge when you bring up Burnley. They own their stadium. They are in the Premier league. They haven't yet been taken over. If they are on the verge of being bought they have also found people willing to part with cash. None of that applies to us.
- Sounds wonderful though, the trust can go to court and if they don't end up selling their shares there, they've got this Burnley affect to look forward to in future. Excellent stuff.
- Yes the trust also showed rather large commitment and demonstrated the fact that under the right conditions they could have sold their shares.
- you brought up the car analogy, i just applied the reality and complexities of the actual situation. Unlike you. Im not pretending at all, in an ideal world, just like your car i wouldn't have wanted the trust to sell.
- Selling them to who in 2016? Its only a no brainer if it suits the seller. The Americans obviously wouldn't / couldn't offer such a package. |
Like many Trust members you see football ownership as a reasonable risk option. They must have as they have made no serious efforts to reduce their risk profile. I seriously question their judgement. Their efforts as selling appeared half hearted in my eyes.
Risk free football investment is a clear myth. Silverstein could easily lose his shirt. Football investment is as high a risk as any investment out there. The US investors are down around £40m. The Trust is down about £13m. Big stake big losses. The people that sold under the leadership of Huw Jenkins have done very well. For Champoinship owners this is a relatively rare event. The bet365 people at Stoke are nursing a £180m loss.
The club would not take this Connvertable Loan Note if the clubs finances are rock solid. The option was the loan or severe austerity. I speculate this would mean major local redundances. You can doubt it if you wish. Winter was also able to use it to squeez extra cash out of Spurs. Their £7m initial offer was forced upto a semi reasonable £15m with add ons. Not great but three good signing came the other way strengthening the team.
With the club in the top six the CLN it is a qualified risk. The US owners clearly believe in the businsess model Mr Cooper, Mr Scott and Mr Winters. It also indicates once cashed that the US owners are going nowhere at least in the short term. Again good news. Levien has been at DC United for about 10 years. Characterising them as 'asset stripping fly by nights' is off the mark. The Trust appear to want to leave the club. This is becaise they do not believe in in Mrsrs Coopers, Scott and Winter. I say the club are better of without them under that sort of leadership of the past. Hopefull the new board have some faith in the club and a not doom laden pessimists afraid of what is around the corner in the shadows.
The QC after a short period looking at the facts said the Trust has a good case. This might mean a 50% chance of winning perhaps ? Still a high risk with millions at stake.
50:50 black or red ? Stake £8m stick or twist? Madness.
Swansea city own the stadium rights for the Liberty stadium. This means they own the fees they can charge for stadium events and fees for the sevivce providers like food and refreshment and concerts etc. Burnley may have the right to demolish their stadium and build a new one out of town. It may be a factor in the £200m price tag. No doubt the fans and the council will have a say in that.
I support the US people who are keeping the club going (very sucessfully as it happen) and thank them for they significant invstment in the club. I fully expect them not to ask for the loan to be repaid but converted into shares. This is good for the club. Minor shareholders will have to be diluted but I do not worry about that. They are already sitting on massive valuation mark ups even if the sell at todays valuation. [Post edited 30 Dec 2020 15:30]
| |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 16:07 - Dec 30 with 823 views | Chief |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 15:28 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Like many Trust members you see football ownership as a reasonable risk option. They must have as they have made no serious efforts to reduce their risk profile. I seriously question their judgement. Their efforts as selling appeared half hearted in my eyes.
Risk free football investment is a clear myth. Silverstein could easily lose his shirt. Football investment is as high a risk as any investment out there. The US investors are down around £40m. The Trust is down about £13m. Big stake big losses. The people that sold under the leadership of Huw Jenkins have done very well. For Champoinship owners this is a relatively rare event. The bet365 people at Stoke are nursing a £180m loss.
The club would not take this Connvertable Loan Note if the clubs finances are rock solid. The option was the loan or severe austerity. I speculate this would mean major local redundances. You can doubt it if you wish. Winter was also able to use it to squeez extra cash out of Spurs. Their £7m initial offer was forced upto a semi reasonable £15m with add ons. Not great but three good signing came the other way strengthening the team.
With the club in the top six the CLN it is a qualified risk. The US owners clearly believe in the businsess model Mr Cooper, Mr Scott and Mr Winters. It also indicates once cashed that the US owners are going nowhere at least in the short term. Again good news. Levien has been at DC United for about 10 years. Characterising them as 'asset stripping fly by nights' is off the mark. The Trust appear to want to leave the club. This is becaise they do not believe in in Mrsrs Coopers, Scott and Winter. I say the club are better of without them under that sort of leadership of the past. Hopefull the new board have some faith in the club and a not doom laden pessimists afraid of what is around the corner in the shadows.
The QC after a short period looking at the facts said the Trust has a good case. This might mean a 50% chance of winning perhaps ? Still a high risk with millions at stake.
50:50 black or red ? Stake £8m stick or twist? Madness.
Swansea city own the stadium rights for the Liberty stadium. This means they own the fees they can charge for stadium events and fees for the sevivce providers like food and refreshment and concerts etc. Burnley may have the right to demolish their stadium and build a new one out of town. It may be a factor in the £200m price tag. No doubt the fans and the council will have a say in that.
I support the US people who are keeping the club going (very sucessfully as it happen) and thank them for they significant invstment in the club. I fully expect them not to ask for the loan to be repaid but converted into shares. This is good for the club. Minor shareholders will have to be diluted but I do not worry about that. They are already sitting on massive valuation mark ups even if the sell at todays valuation. [Post edited 30 Dec 2020 15:30]
|
- You stated yourself they were in negotiations with the Americans for a considerable amount of time. So not half hearted at all. By your own logic and words, any mark up they are going to receive from any of the realistic outcomes barring a complete collapse of the teams performance will be of a magnitude that it cannot be labelled as bad business. So you're just having random digs even though you're own doctrines don't back the statements up.
- So how can he lose? We aren't getting relegated. And if by some disaster it looks like we are going to he calls in his loan! As it stands he doesn't own anything. So that paragraph has no relevance.
- No one said the finances are rock solid. Theres an obvious hit come from the pandemic. Well we sold our best player for a reduced price, brought in only freebies, loans and still have squad deficiencies so you could argue this is a form of austerity as it is. No the figure was 11mill with add ons. Add ons thar judging by his lack of game time we may not see. A very unreasonable fee no matter what Levys starting point was.
- Yea of course they like Cooper, he's managed to use his contacts to bring in players which they would not sanction the fee to buy of the same standard. Yes i don't see the Americans going anywhere for a while either - they aren't going to recoup their outlay with us in a lower division than when they bought it. Yes Levein has been at DC for years. Why are you omitting the fact that their sporting performance has been terrible during his tenure.
- Winter has stated himself he is working in conjuction regularly with the trust which completely contradicts your pessimist viewpoint. Funny you ignore what he says when it doesn't suit your agenda. The trust back all three of those men, they have done publically.
- 50% chance doesn't mean good chance and therefore he wouldn't have said that. It would be a far higher percentage to use such language.
- 8 million? Where's that random figure come from?
- indeed the lease also comes with liabilities.
- very successfully is stretch. Since their ownership we've been relegated, the academy has been downgraded, they've lost a court case against the stadiun owners, appointed bob Bradley, ostericised the club's life members amongst other things so let's not get carried away. There are worse owners out there. And we have no idea who they'll sell to.
- Owners ladening clubs they own with debt is not good news. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 17:11 - Dec 30 with 811 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 16:07 - Dec 30 by Chief |
- You stated yourself they were in negotiations with the Americans for a considerable amount of time. So not half hearted at all. By your own logic and words, any mark up they are going to receive from any of the realistic outcomes barring a complete collapse of the teams performance will be of a magnitude that it cannot be labelled as bad business. So you're just having random digs even though you're own doctrines don't back the statements up.
- So how can he lose? We aren't getting relegated. And if by some disaster it looks like we are going to he calls in his loan! As it stands he doesn't own anything. So that paragraph has no relevance.
- No one said the finances are rock solid. Theres an obvious hit come from the pandemic. Well we sold our best player for a reduced price, brought in only freebies, loans and still have squad deficiencies so you could argue this is a form of austerity as it is. No the figure was 11mill with add ons. Add ons thar judging by his lack of game time we may not see. A very unreasonable fee no matter what Levys starting point was.
- Yea of course they like Cooper, he's managed to use his contacts to bring in players which they would not sanction the fee to buy of the same standard. Yes i don't see the Americans going anywhere for a while either - they aren't going to recoup their outlay with us in a lower division than when they bought it. Yes Levein has been at DC for years. Why are you omitting the fact that their sporting performance has been terrible during his tenure.
- Winter has stated himself he is working in conjuction regularly with the trust which completely contradicts your pessimist viewpoint. Funny you ignore what he says when it doesn't suit your agenda. The trust back all three of those men, they have done publically.
- 50% chance doesn't mean good chance and therefore he wouldn't have said that. It would be a far higher percentage to use such language.
- 8 million? Where's that random figure come from?
- indeed the lease also comes with liabilities.
- very successfully is stretch. Since their ownership we've been relegated, the academy has been downgraded, they've lost a court case against the stadiun owners, appointed bob Bradley, ostericised the club's life members amongst other things so let's not get carried away. There are worse owners out there. And we have no idea who they'll sell to.
- Owners ladening clubs they own with debt is not good news. |
They are making life no more trouble for mr Winter which is good and at least saying the right things. This is their modus operandi. Thier annoucement on line are not so constructive.
The CLN suggests they have been making more agreements in the dark coridors of power. Agreement for their own dilutiion as they are not capable of contributing due to past mismanagement.
"These are the worst owners out there". Come off it. Sheffield Wednesday players have seen missed slaary payments. Wigan had a brutal fire sale (a real one). These owners have put £5-10m of their own money into the club and fulfilled all their obligations including relaying the pitch (not cheap) and maintaining the stadium. Selling is not even on the agenda. They will probably not even ask for the money back . Proper investment.
Investment most Trust supporters said would never happen. When it does it labelled laughably as "cash dumping" and a get rich quick scam. Like I say it must have already been agreed by the Trust. | |
| |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 17:26 - Dec 30 with 805 views | Garyjack |
| What is a convertable loan note? Pros and cons on 17:11 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They are making life no more trouble for mr Winter which is good and at least saying the right things. This is their modus operandi. Thier annoucement on line are not so constructive.
The CLN suggests they have been making more agreements in the dark coridors of power. Agreement for their own dilutiion as they are not capable of contributing due to past mismanagement.
"These are the worst owners out there". Come off it. Sheffield Wednesday players have seen missed slaary payments. Wigan had a brutal fire sale (a real one). These owners have put £5-10m of their own money into the club and fulfilled all their obligations including relaying the pitch (not cheap) and maintaining the stadium. Selling is not even on the agenda. They will probably not even ask for the money back . Proper investment.
Investment most Trust supporters said would never happen. When it does it labelled laughably as "cash dumping" and a get rich quick scam. Like I say it must have already been agreed by the Trust. |
What a cock up!  | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.