| Trust Issues 10:45 - Feb 27 with 3491 views | KeithHaynes |
I don’t know the chap, but I assume someone does ?
The strong performances make it even harder to sit and watch from home, but credit to Steve Cooper and the players for their efforts in what must sometimes feel like a training exercise (in atmosphere, if not intensity).
Like Swansea’s defence on Wednesday night, the Trust Board is really clicking at the moment with great levels of involvement both in the Trust’s activities and with the club. In the last few weeks we’ve had a number of productive discussions with Julian Winter and Swansea’s Head of Commercial, Rebecca Edwards-Symmons; we have also continued to progress with Trust initiatives at our monthly board meetings and sub-group forums.
As I’ve mentioned previously, a huge part of my work with the Trust has been on modernising how we communicate with fans and members, and the frequency with which we do that.
It’s been great to engage with so many of you through our social media channels — I’ve enjoyed reading your pre-match score predictions on Instagram, some of which have been spot on. It’s clear that the optimism runs pretty deep right now amongst the Jack Army. If you’d like to get involved, you can follow us @SwansTrust.
This increased engagement feels especially important when we aren’t able to meet with you all face to face at the Pod, a position I look forward to taking up with some of my fellow Board Members as soon as it’s safe to do so. Rest assured, I’ll still want those score predictions.
We recognise that social media isn’t for everyone however, and so you can always reach us by email if you have any questions — communications@swanstrust.co.uk. We are always open to hearing your thoughts on what more we can do, so keep those suggestions and comments coming in for us.
Looking backwards to look forwards…
2021 is a year of milestones for the Club and the Supporters’ Trust — 10 years ago we were promoted to the Premier League. 20 years ago, in July, the Swansea City Supporters’ Trust was officially formed. This is a significant milestone, and one we are looking to celebrate throughout the 2021/2022 season — preparations for this are well under way and you will hear more about this throughout the summer.
On the pitch, it was great to see us get back to winning ways against Coventry. It’s fair to say the boys are flying, especially at home, and long may that continue. Ben Cabango has been superb of late, and he is good for his four goals this season — that’s also testament to our great improvement in set pieces.
Bristol City are a team on the up, and another with a new manager. Let’s hope we can do what we did when we last played at home versus a new manager (Watford) — we’ll take a 2-0 win please boys.
Enjoy the game.
Adam
|  |
| |  |
| Trust Issues on 15:18 - Mar 2 with 571 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust Issues on 09:52 - Mar 2 by onehunglow |
And exactly what are they?
Is there any evidence of that ? |
Other options to legal action.
a) Holding their 21% holding indefinately and keeping no cash to invest.
This will see the Trusts holding diluted over time but any loses would be compensated by valuation gains in the business. (This was the policiy of 2015 where the Trusts board member was quoted as saying the Trust would never sell).
b) Putting some of their shares up for sale at the right time in the PL
c) Putting all of their shares up for sale in the PL.
Inflation in football should see huge profits well exceeding those of legal action if Swansea return to the PL.
d) Investing cash into property or bonds and shares if allowed. (investing in property is allowed for sure). Cashing in with no investment plan is foolish.
e) Holding all assets in a football club would be percieved as extremely risky by any financial advisor. There seems no good reason to me why SCST should be forced to keep such high risk investment while other investments are available which are guarenteed to grow steadily.
Is there any evidence of the Trust and US people having the same objective?
The US owners want to sell the club to a billionire and make a substantial profit similar to Burnley. This would be a 70% profit margin based on the reported Burnley price. This would give them and their investors a £48m profit. ($67m). Mr Silverstein stated that they would want to sell the club some years down the road at a profit but they were business builders not speculators.
Given that the Trust is considering a forced sale at a low 2016 (no profit for the US people) it can be assumed that also want to make a profit on sale. The forced sale at the depressed 2016 price £21m will be asoociated with prohibitive fees and costs possibly upto to £8m leaving only £13-14m before tax. An agreed partnership with the US people would see them take £35m before tax. (assuming a 70% profit margin on the 2016 price).This return on investment would be astonishingly good.
The reason the Trust wanted to cash in at the 2016 price was because the club had a downward trajectory and the owners were precieved as 'asset strippers'. This assumption has proven to be false. Legal action only makes sense if the club is struggling on the brink of adminstration in league 2.
All this is common sense not propoganda. When the Trust was set up no one in the right mind would think it would be this sucessfull. [Post edited 2 Mar 2021 15:22]
|  |
| |
| Trust Issues on 15:30 - Mar 2 with 556 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 15:18 - Mar 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Other options to legal action.
a) Holding their 21% holding indefinately and keeping no cash to invest.
This will see the Trusts holding diluted over time but any loses would be compensated by valuation gains in the business. (This was the policiy of 2015 where the Trusts board member was quoted as saying the Trust would never sell).
b) Putting some of their shares up for sale at the right time in the PL
c) Putting all of their shares up for sale in the PL.
Inflation in football should see huge profits well exceeding those of legal action if Swansea return to the PL.
d) Investing cash into property or bonds and shares if allowed. (investing in property is allowed for sure). Cashing in with no investment plan is foolish.
e) Holding all assets in a football club would be percieved as extremely risky by any financial advisor. There seems no good reason to me why SCST should be forced to keep such high risk investment while other investments are available which are guarenteed to grow steadily.
Is there any evidence of the Trust and US people having the same objective?
The US owners want to sell the club to a billionire and make a substantial profit similar to Burnley. This would be a 70% profit margin based on the reported Burnley price. This would give them and their investors a £48m profit. ($67m). Mr Silverstein stated that they would want to sell the club some years down the road at a profit but they were business builders not speculators.
Given that the Trust is considering a forced sale at a low 2016 (no profit for the US people) it can be assumed that also want to make a profit on sale. The forced sale at the depressed 2016 price £21m will be asoociated with prohibitive fees and costs possibly upto to £8m leaving only £13-14m before tax. An agreed partnership with the US people would see them take £35m before tax. (assuming a 70% profit margin on the 2016 price).This return on investment would be astonishingly good.
The reason the Trust wanted to cash in at the 2016 price was because the club had a downward trajectory and the owners were precieved as 'asset strippers'. This assumption has proven to be false. Legal action only makes sense if the club is struggling on the brink of adminstration in league 2.
All this is common sense not propoganda. When the Trust was set up no one in the right mind would think it would be this sucessfull. [Post edited 2 Mar 2021 15:22]
|
Why won't you answer my question? |  |
| |
| Trust Issues on 15:50 - Mar 2 with 553 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust Issues on 15:30 - Mar 2 by Chief |
Why won't you answer my question? |
What is the the question? | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 15:52 - Mar 2 with 550 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 19:11 - Mar 1 by Chief |
Is that exactly what the QC said? |
This..... | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 16:00 - Mar 2 with 546 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust Issues on 01:40 - Mar 2 by NotLoyal |
It's very hard to work in harmony when you know the very people you will work with were a part of the problem that caused the legal action. Allegedly. |
The new leadwrship seems to find it a lot easier than the old leadership thankfully. There is currently no legal action for an event that took place close on 5 years ago.
In my opinion time has moved on the the justification for action is no longer valid. No one will sell their house at the 2016 price. The longer it rumbles on the less appealing the 2016 price becomes. | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 16:06 - Mar 2 with 544 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 16:00 - Mar 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The new leadwrship seems to find it a lot easier than the old leadership thankfully. There is currently no legal action for an event that took place close on 5 years ago.
In my opinion time has moved on the the justification for action is no longer valid. No one will sell their house at the 2016 price. The longer it rumbles on the less appealing the 2016 price becomes. |
The latest trust update of a few days ago does however state that preparations for legal action are continuing. | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 18:05 - Mar 2 with 526 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust Issues on 15:52 - Mar 2 by Chief |
This..... |
The QC did say legal action was 'last resort'. The fact that mediation never happened suggests it has not been treated as a last resort. The reasons for this are as usual hard to understand with both sides balming each other. I wil find the quote | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 18:09 - Mar 2 with 524 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 18:05 - Mar 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The QC did say legal action was 'last resort'. The fact that mediation never happened suggests it has not been treated as a last resort. The reasons for this are as usual hard to understand with both sides balming each other. I wil find the quote |
Ignoring the inaccuracies in this post, it seems you are ignoring something.... I wonder why....
What did the QC actually say Resolven???
Come on now, you can do it.... | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Issues on 18:46 - Mar 2 with 513 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust Issues on 18:09 - Mar 2 by Chief |
Ignoring the inaccuracies in this post, it seems you are ignoring something.... I wonder why....
What did the QC actually say Resolven???
Come on now, you can do it.... |
Chief, You can check these thing out for yourself. I am not your personal secretary. This is an extract from The Trust statement of 2017. (29 June).
" However, there are a number of things to note at this time. If the Trust is successful in winning such a court action, the remedy would most likely be to compel the majority owners to buy out the Trust’s shareholding in its entirety. The clock cannot be turned back to before the sale. This could mean the Trust would have a significant amount of money in the bank for a rainy day. On the other hand, the Trust would have no stake and no say in the running of the football club. Also, there are no guarantees when it comes to court cases — they are expensive (the Trust has incurred fees of over £30,000 to date), can take months or even years to complete and are ultimately unpredictable. There would be no guarantee of victory. Our QC has also advised that legal action should only ever be a last resort after negotiations break down. This is a view the Trust board has always agreed with, as it understands the destabilising effect that legal action will have upon the Trust and the Club. " | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 18:53 - Mar 2 with 510 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 18:46 - Mar 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Chief, You can check these thing out for yourself. I am not your personal secretary. This is an extract from The Trust statement of 2017. (29 June).
" However, there are a number of things to note at this time. If the Trust is successful in winning such a court action, the remedy would most likely be to compel the majority owners to buy out the Trust’s shareholding in its entirety. The clock cannot be turned back to before the sale. This could mean the Trust would have a significant amount of money in the bank for a rainy day. On the other hand, the Trust would have no stake and no say in the running of the football club. Also, there are no guarantees when it comes to court cases — they are expensive (the Trust has incurred fees of over £30,000 to date), can take months or even years to complete and are ultimately unpredictable. There would be no guarantee of victory. Our QC has also advised that legal action should only ever be a last resort after negotiations break down. This is a view the Trust board has always agreed with, as it understands the destabilising effect that legal action will have upon the Trust and the Club. " |
Ok I'll spell it out to you....
What comment did the QC make as to the strength of case??? | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 20:26 - Mar 2 with 494 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust Issues on 18:53 - Mar 2 by Chief |
Ok I'll spell it out to you....
What comment did the QC make as to the strength of case??? |
I have stated the QC considered the Trust should only go to court as a "last resort". You questioned this statement and asked for proof. I have provided you with proof as requested from Trust statements.
What the QC said about the strength of the case is for you to comment on if you want to. If the case is strong it would have already gone ahead I suspect. It is closing on 5 years after the event in question.
I have argued that the longer it takes the weaker the economic case becomes due to inflation. The Trust are closing on a scenario where they would get the same money from an agreed sale at Champoinship prices, as compared with a forced sale as 2016 Premier league prices. This is due to inflation and the very high fees of funders insureres and legal people. | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 20:31 - Mar 2 with 491 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 20:26 - Mar 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have stated the QC considered the Trust should only go to court as a "last resort". You questioned this statement and asked for proof. I have provided you with proof as requested from Trust statements.
What the QC said about the strength of the case is for you to comment on if you want to. If the case is strong it would have already gone ahead I suspect. It is closing on 5 years after the event in question.
I have argued that the longer it takes the weaker the economic case becomes due to inflation. The Trust are closing on a scenario where they would get the same money from an agreed sale at Champoinship prices, as compared with a forced sale as 2016 Premier league prices. This is due to inflation and the very high fees of funders insureres and legal people. |
Haha you're really showing your bias here. Come on, what did the QC say regarding the strength of the case Resolven???? | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 22:44 - Mar 2 with 474 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust Issues on 20:31 - Mar 2 by Chief |
Haha you're really showing your bias here. Come on, what did the QC say regarding the strength of the case Resolven???? |
Of course I am bias. I am not bias against he Trust but biassed against the Trust's aguments for going to court. These make no economic sense in the long term. | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 22:52 - Mar 2 with 469 views | AndyCole |
| Trust Issues on 22:44 - Mar 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Of course I am bias. I am not bias against he Trust but biassed against the Trust's aguments for going to court. These make no economic sense in the long term. |
You make perfect sense. Why on earth would folk blindly follow some random mantra, almost like an unthinking religious cult ?
What are the facts ? Pros and Cons for our club ? |  |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
| |
| Trust Issues on 22:56 - Mar 2 with 467 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 22:44 - Mar 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Of course I am bias. I am not bias against he Trust but biassed against the Trust's aguments for going to court. These make no economic sense in the long term. |
Haha laughable. So are you actually going to admit what the QC actually stated in relation to the merits of the case? Although your last post demonstrates entirely why you have no credibility whatsoever on the subject.... | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 23:20 - Mar 2 with 457 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 22:52 - Mar 2 by AndyCole |
You make perfect sense. Why on earth would folk blindly follow some random mantra, almost like an unthinking religious cult ?
What are the facts ? Pros and Cons for our club ? |
So you don't know the facts, the pros or the cons, but you allude to that people who support legal action are like an 'unthinking religious cult'?
Bit of a strange conclusion to come to that with such little knowledge of the situation? | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 23:27 - Mar 2 with 455 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 22:52 - Mar 2 by AndyCole |
You make perfect sense. Why on earth would folk blindly follow some random mantra, almost like an unthinking religious cult ?
What are the facts ? Pros and Cons for our club ? |
Also strange that you think Resolven 'makes perfect sense' when he's the one who unprompted repeatedly regurgitates the same boring 'Burnley' scenario that doesn't apply to us and attacks the trust repeatedly when nothing has happened to prompt it like anti-trust zombie on a mission. His points have been discounted to death & when he is probed he tends to go & hide for a bit & ignores the thread (he's very scared of London Lisa), then casually pops up on a different thread (usually with the most tedious of links to situation) with unwavering regularly, and the cycle begins again.
And yet you don't think he presents cult- like brainwashed tendencies? [Post edited 2 Mar 2021 23:33]
| |
| |
| Trust Issues on 09:22 - Mar 3 with 403 views | pikeypaul |
Resolven showing us all how pathetic he is in trying to hide what the QC said at the time and smoke screening the actual events and actions of the sell out coonts |  |
| |
| Trust Issues on 09:26 - Mar 3 with 400 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 09:22 - Mar 3 by pikeypaul |
Resolven showing us all how pathetic he is in trying to hide what the QC said at the time and smoke screening the actual events and actions of the sell out coonts |
Indeed, well seeing as Resolven is living in a parallel delusional universe, here's a section that he conveniently did not copy&paste:
"Over the last few months we have been engaged with a highly recommended QC, one of the foremost experts in the UK specialising in cases of unfair prejudice. It is his guidance that the Trust has a STRONG CASE for unfair prejudice, should the matter go to court." | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 09:36 - Mar 3 with 399 views | pikeypaul |
And that is QC speak for its 99.9% sure you will win.
They would never say anything more than "strong case" even when they know it's a virtual certainty. | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 09:46 - Mar 3 with 390 views | YrAlarch |
| Trust Issues on 18:05 - Mar 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The QC did say legal action was 'last resort'. The fact that mediation never happened suggests it has not been treated as a last resort. The reasons for this are as usual hard to understand with both sides balming each other. I wil find the quote |
Res. This is one of the reasons you have no credibility. Mediation did not happen because HJ et al would not engage. The only path open to the Trust then was court action, which they are now pursuing. | | | |
| Trust Issues on 10:13 - Mar 3 with 386 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 09:46 - Mar 3 by YrAlarch |
Res. This is one of the reasons you have no credibility. Mediation did not happen because HJ et al would not engage. The only path open to the Trust then was court action, which they are now pursuing. |
The Americans also wouldn't take part. They decided to send other associates who played no part in sale, rendering it useless. | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 13:27 - Mar 3 with 367 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust Issues on 09:26 - Mar 3 by Chief |
Indeed, well seeing as Resolven is living in a parallel delusional universe, here's a section that he conveniently did not copy&paste:
"Over the last few months we have been engaged with a highly recommended QC, one of the foremost experts in the UK specialising in cases of unfair prejudice. It is his guidance that the Trust has a STRONG CASE for unfair prejudice, should the matter go to court." |
There are a few issues I would like to explore with you on this.
So what does a 'strong case' actually mean? Interestingly he did not say "very strong case". The 99.9% chance of wining from 'Me learned P- Paul' is clearly laughable. I would guess anything between 40% to 95% of wining perhaps?
I have been advised "no win no fee" arrangements only apply for near certain wins. The time taken to get to this point suggests this probably does not apply here. It is probably a hybid deal. I would assume the longer talks progress the more the funders will add to their fees in the case of winning and losing. The Trusts only assets are its cash and its shares.
Defenders of legal action must outline the consequences of losing a case which clearly is not certain. That would be communication. The funders and insurers will have a much clearer understanding of the case than the QC who presumably had only a short window to work in.
I supported the remark that the QC said the case should be seem as a 'last resort' from the 2017. With no 'formal ' mediation having taken place going to court is clearly not a 'last resort '.
The idea that there is no alternative to legal action is not at all true in my opinion.
For example in Burnley was sold between £170-200m why would SCST sell for an 'equivalent value' of £65m for their 21%. This I have argued only makes sense if Swansea is in league 2. The value of Derby county was quoted at £60m in the Championship in 2020. You discount the Burnley example. Why? Swansea could be in the PL in 6 months time. (35% chance perhaps)
I argue the Trust by agreeing a tag on / drag on deal with the US will within the next 10 years be guarenteed at least the return equivalent from legal action simply by doing nothing assuming inflation and maintaining a championship place. With a tag on drag on deal in the premier league £40m+ for their shares in not unrealistic.
Legal action makes no economic sense for what I can see if there is a long term vision. | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 13:45 - Mar 3 with 363 views | Chief |
| Trust Issues on 13:27 - Mar 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There are a few issues I would like to explore with you on this.
So what does a 'strong case' actually mean? Interestingly he did not say "very strong case". The 99.9% chance of wining from 'Me learned P- Paul' is clearly laughable. I would guess anything between 40% to 95% of wining perhaps?
I have been advised "no win no fee" arrangements only apply for near certain wins. The time taken to get to this point suggests this probably does not apply here. It is probably a hybid deal. I would assume the longer talks progress the more the funders will add to their fees in the case of winning and losing. The Trusts only assets are its cash and its shares.
Defenders of legal action must outline the consequences of losing a case which clearly is not certain. That would be communication. The funders and insurers will have a much clearer understanding of the case than the QC who presumably had only a short window to work in.
I supported the remark that the QC said the case should be seem as a 'last resort' from the 2017. With no 'formal ' mediation having taken place going to court is clearly not a 'last resort '.
The idea that there is no alternative to legal action is not at all true in my opinion.
For example in Burnley was sold between £170-200m why would SCST sell for an 'equivalent value' of £65m for their 21%. This I have argued only makes sense if Swansea is in league 2. The value of Derby county was quoted at £60m in the Championship in 2020. You discount the Burnley example. Why? Swansea could be in the PL in 6 months time. (35% chance perhaps)
I argue the Trust by agreeing a tag on / drag on deal with the US will within the next 10 years be guarenteed at least the return equivalent from legal action simply by doing nothing assuming inflation and maintaining a championship place. With a tag on drag on deal in the premier league £40m+ for their shares in not unrealistic.
Legal action makes no economic sense for what I can see if there is a long term vision. |
Oh nice of you to finally address this fair play.
- No rational person, let alone one trained in a legal field would consider a 40% chance as strong. That's just absurd and you are better than that extreme attempt at straw clutching. I also think that i doubt a QC would go so far out on a limb to go over the top either so if i had to say it would be anything over 70% for me. Not that it requires quantifying. 'Strong' is a perfectly fine descriptive term in its own right.
For the rest of your comment is back into the wilderness again that's been done to death and is completely pointless going over again. | |
| |
| Trust Issues on 13:52 - Mar 3 with 360 views | swancity |
| Trust Issues on 13:27 - Mar 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There are a few issues I would like to explore with you on this.
So what does a 'strong case' actually mean? Interestingly he did not say "very strong case". The 99.9% chance of wining from 'Me learned P- Paul' is clearly laughable. I would guess anything between 40% to 95% of wining perhaps?
I have been advised "no win no fee" arrangements only apply for near certain wins. The time taken to get to this point suggests this probably does not apply here. It is probably a hybid deal. I would assume the longer talks progress the more the funders will add to their fees in the case of winning and losing. The Trusts only assets are its cash and its shares.
Defenders of legal action must outline the consequences of losing a case which clearly is not certain. That would be communication. The funders and insurers will have a much clearer understanding of the case than the QC who presumably had only a short window to work in.
I supported the remark that the QC said the case should be seem as a 'last resort' from the 2017. With no 'formal ' mediation having taken place going to court is clearly not a 'last resort '.
The idea that there is no alternative to legal action is not at all true in my opinion.
For example in Burnley was sold between £170-200m why would SCST sell for an 'equivalent value' of £65m for their 21%. This I have argued only makes sense if Swansea is in league 2. The value of Derby county was quoted at £60m in the Championship in 2020. You discount the Burnley example. Why? Swansea could be in the PL in 6 months time. (35% chance perhaps)
I argue the Trust by agreeing a tag on / drag on deal with the US will within the next 10 years be guarenteed at least the return equivalent from legal action simply by doing nothing assuming inflation and maintaining a championship place. With a tag on drag on deal in the premier league £40m+ for their shares in not unrealistic.
Legal action makes no economic sense for what I can see if there is a long term vision. |
We shall see whether or not it makes economic sense when it gets into Court. There’s a “ strong “
chance that it will. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
