| Yanks good owners discuss 20:40 - Mar 16 with 6808 views | Swans9 |
We needed n9 cooper asked they said no. Before you hammer me I am a swans fan hang your head in shame yank lovers. |  | | |  |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 11:37 - Mar 19 with 846 views | 9MilesHigh |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 21:03 - Mar 18 by vetchonian |
so you have decided Cooper is only capable of playing pragmatic football....why?
You too missed the point of my post...you quote tgat Nartinezs revolution didnt happen overnight,Bielsa took 2 seasons to transform Leeds abd get them promoted.
In my original post i offer up a reason for Coopers approach that is our owbers gave targeted him with promotion before the parachute payments end...ie this season..That means he doesnt have the luxury of time...he needs results.and that means a sifferent approach to that allowed to Bielsa and Martinez...as i said how people are measured in the workplace dictates
their behaviour.
Maybe just maybe this could explain some things |
Mate, honesty, of course the owners want promotion, but the line of they have tasked him with it doesn't mean Cooper would have done things any differently. We played the same last season, didn't we. Not always with 3 at the back, but often without the ball.
Cooper hasn't adopted his style and mentality just because the owners want promotion, this is just his way of getting it. That's a big difference.
And I know we have had better games here and there where we've been on the ball a bit more. But remember, these are pro footballers we are talking about, they can all play the game the right way.
It's not about the odd passage of play here and there or even a full 45 minutes of it, it's a culture and style that is instilled in every game. |  | | |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 13:32 - Mar 19 with 812 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 21:13 - Mar 18 by Chief |
- Burnley are a premier league club in their 5th consecutive season at that level.
- They own their stadium.
- They have a squad of premier league value players.
- They apparently have £42million in the bank.
- Their ownership structure as far as i know didn't involve any holding companies.
So we're barely comparable to Burnley. The takeover was only for 84%, so they didn't buy the whole thing. Entirely possible that happens with us too where only the majority owners are bought out, leaving some small shareholders. Sound familiar?
So let's leave it there. As lovely as your Burnley plan is, its pure fantasy. Not going to happen and these irrefutable differences above you've been told several times. So pay attention this time. |
Swansea own their own stadium too. A 30 year commercial let. Levein and co can do what they like with the stadium as effective owners.
The "aparently have £42m in the bank". Please provide evidence. This would value Burnley at £158m if true. 21% of 158 is still £33m not the £14m resulting from legal action.
Holding companies what difference does it make.? I suggest you are far from being an expert to pontificate on this.
Burnley's players are ageing with few young diamonds like McNeil.
Swansea iare clearly comparable with Burnley and have been since both were in league 2.
Leagal action only makes sense if Swansea are heading downwards not upwards. The 'strategists' of leagal action foresaw relegation and years in the wilderness. it has not happened. Swansea have come out of Covid stronger than their rivals at a top 10 team 3 years running.
Of couse you want to "leave it there". Members who think the clubs fiuture is bright have been sold a pup. Ben Cabango believes in Swansea he has signed a 4 year contract.
Chief sees relegation and a non competetive Swansea. Perhps the members do too. If so they can get lost. This club has no time for losers in the ownership group.
The 85% buyout presumably relates to the new figure of £170m. The whole club is therefore £200m. Double the Swansea city 2016 price. |  |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 14:13 - Mar 19 with 809 views | Chief |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 13:32 - Mar 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Swansea own their own stadium too. A 30 year commercial let. Levein and co can do what they like with the stadium as effective owners.
The "aparently have £42m in the bank". Please provide evidence. This would value Burnley at £158m if true. 21% of 158 is still £33m not the £14m resulting from legal action.
Holding companies what difference does it make.? I suggest you are far from being an expert to pontificate on this.
Burnley's players are ageing with few young diamonds like McNeil.
Swansea iare clearly comparable with Burnley and have been since both were in league 2.
Leagal action only makes sense if Swansea are heading downwards not upwards. The 'strategists' of leagal action foresaw relegation and years in the wilderness. it has not happened. Swansea have come out of Covid stronger than their rivals at a top 10 team 3 years running.
Of couse you want to "leave it there". Members who think the clubs fiuture is bright have been sold a pup. Ben Cabango believes in Swansea he has signed a 4 year contract.
Chief sees relegation and a non competetive Swansea. Perhps the members do too. If so they can get lost. This club has no time for losers in the ownership group.
The 85% buyout presumably relates to the new figure of £170m. The whole club is therefore £200m. Double the Swansea city 2016 price. |
- not the same as owning the stadium. Who knows what clauses are in the liberty lease agreement. Might not be as simple as sending in the contractors whenever the club feel like it to expand for example.
- See this for money in the bank. No debt. Unlike us too. https://www.theguardian.com/fo Who's lazy now?
- the Americans sell that holding company, the majority share gets sold too and the chances are, no other shareholder i assumed automatically sells theirs. Not saying it would be any different if they fancied selling without including any other shareholders in future but it certainly adds to the murkiness. We don't even know who owns that company. Negotiating to get involved in a sale won't be easy. Don't pretend it'll be as straight forward as dealing with single entity shareholders.
- whereas our squad is ultimately loans, untested at the top level youngsters and the likes of Bennett the wrong side of their peak. No comparison.
I'll leave you to dream up your theories regarding why members voted. I've told you repeatedly what you're saying is baseless and false, but you take no notice.
I see relegation? Do i?
Haha yea mindy kalling et al are big winners in footballing circles. 'get lost' oooohhh that's mature Resolven, getting nervous about something my friend?
Again, it's completely irrelevant what Burnley are worth in relation to us. So you can dream up whatever value you want for them. [Post edited 19 Mar 2021 14:17]
|  |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 14:57 - Mar 19 with 795 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 14:13 - Mar 19 by Chief |
- not the same as owning the stadium. Who knows what clauses are in the liberty lease agreement. Might not be as simple as sending in the contractors whenever the club feel like it to expand for example.
- See this for money in the bank. No debt. Unlike us too. https://www.theguardian.com/fo Who's lazy now?
- the Americans sell that holding company, the majority share gets sold too and the chances are, no other shareholder i assumed automatically sells theirs. Not saying it would be any different if they fancied selling without including any other shareholders in future but it certainly adds to the murkiness. We don't even know who owns that company. Negotiating to get involved in a sale won't be easy. Don't pretend it'll be as straight forward as dealing with single entity shareholders.
- whereas our squad is ultimately loans, untested at the top level youngsters and the likes of Bennett the wrong side of their peak. No comparison.
I'll leave you to dream up your theories regarding why members voted. I've told you repeatedly what you're saying is baseless and false, but you take no notice.
I see relegation? Do i?
Haha yea mindy kalling et al are big winners in footballing circles. 'get lost' oooohhh that's mature Resolven, getting nervous about something my friend?
Again, it's completely irrelevant what Burnley are worth in relation to us. So you can dream up whatever value you want for them. [Post edited 19 Mar 2021 14:17]
|
The clauses in the agreement probablty relate to not using the stadium for any other purpose (such as building flats). Commerical leases are designed for supermarkets and are very common. They effectively own the site for a precise period.
If the holding company is sold it is sold. If the club is sold the club is sold. There is no issue here. The Trust members entered the business world with open eyes notionally made a fortune doing next to nothing. Now some members like you are complaining it is a "murkey" place.
I suspect the US people have a tag on agreement with the 2016 sellers still holding shares. This was agreed by them but not by the Trust. It was reportedly offered to the Trust.
Getting involved in a sale will be very easy if the parties are on good terms. They simply sign a tag on agreement but must accept also a drag on agreement as a downside. This might require the Trust to sell at price less than they would want. It is still better than legal ation which automatically requires 40% fees or more.
You as a member should know the fees. Please enlighten us. if the fees are still not agreed or close to agreement and very large they should be put to the members. It is 5 years from the sale evnt and the membership will have changed by churn as have the Trust board. Given the period that has elapsed it is democratic to have a new vote.
Telling the members to 'get lost' out of the club is not immatue. It is what they voted for having been sold a fake narrative that the club were falling down the leagues. A Swansea trait of ultra pessimissm. Such losers should not be involved in making club decsions.
Fans and members understand football but not finance and certainly not matters of law and legal procedures. They can mke their own comparision. Over the last 30 or so years Burnley and Swansea are comaprable teams and places.
Burnley is valued at £200m . 21% of £200m is £42m. The Trust wil extract £14m or less from legal action. It makes no econonomic sense if members believe returning to the PL is a probability. The US owners clerly believe the club cn retunrn. Mindi Kallin beleieves in the club. The Chief does not. | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 15:30 - Mar 19 with 792 views | Chief |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 14:57 - Mar 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The clauses in the agreement probablty relate to not using the stadium for any other purpose (such as building flats). Commerical leases are designed for supermarkets and are very common. They effectively own the site for a precise period.
If the holding company is sold it is sold. If the club is sold the club is sold. There is no issue here. The Trust members entered the business world with open eyes notionally made a fortune doing next to nothing. Now some members like you are complaining it is a "murkey" place.
I suspect the US people have a tag on agreement with the 2016 sellers still holding shares. This was agreed by them but not by the Trust. It was reportedly offered to the Trust.
Getting involved in a sale will be very easy if the parties are on good terms. They simply sign a tag on agreement but must accept also a drag on agreement as a downside. This might require the Trust to sell at price less than they would want. It is still better than legal ation which automatically requires 40% fees or more.
You as a member should know the fees. Please enlighten us. if the fees are still not agreed or close to agreement and very large they should be put to the members. It is 5 years from the sale evnt and the membership will have changed by churn as have the Trust board. Given the period that has elapsed it is democratic to have a new vote.
Telling the members to 'get lost' out of the club is not immatue. It is what they voted for having been sold a fake narrative that the club were falling down the leagues. A Swansea trait of ultra pessimissm. Such losers should not be involved in making club decsions.
Fans and members understand football but not finance and certainly not matters of law and legal procedures. They can mke their own comparision. Over the last 30 or so years Burnley and Swansea are comaprable teams and places.
Burnley is valued at £200m . 21% of £200m is £42m. The Trust wil extract £14m or less from legal action. It makes no econonomic sense if members believe returning to the PL is a probability. The US owners clerly believe the club cn retunrn. Mindi Kallin beleieves in the club. The Chief does not. |
- Maybe the council don't want us to expand, bigger stadium = bigger liability that the council may not want to take back on. Obviously different situation to Burnley.
- The trust members entered the football club with full knowledge of their fellow share holders. That is a completely different landscape now. Obviously different situation to Burnley.
- So the trust signing that tag along agreement (if any exists) would presumably mean the trust selling to whoever the Americans sell up to and at the same price. Considering the Americans have several other business interests besides us, would that be wise for the trust? Come on now Resolven try for once to be an unbiased and answer that fairly.
- you can't guarantee the club when it's eventually sold will be for a price any higher than what legal action may gain. That's far far from certain.
- Maybe you should sign up and have a say and canvass the trust board to put it to another vote.... But you're already moaning that it's taken this long.... Preparations are still ongoing so assume the fees aren't finalised.
- its ok mate, you don't have to justify you lashing out and losing your cool. I bet there's plenty more like you bricking it too. Again, I'll leave you to cook up theories and guesses as to why people voted why they did. Pointless me telling you again, you're so unbalanced on the topic you'll just ignore and keep assuming and inventing these little stories.
- What's 30 years got to do with anything? Less than 30 years ago Burnley were in the equivalent of league 1. Did they base their bid on that!? No of course not, it's present day that really matters. And presently Burnley are in a very different situation to us, I've given you the differences over and over and none of them can be refuted can they?
- So here are back to the irrelevant figures again. Best if you just put them to the back of your mind. Saves disappointment for you IF we do go up and we don't start suddenly receiving bids. Let alone bids for just 21% or bids including 21% the Americans don't own.
- if i didn't believe in the 'club' i wouldn't be this invested and i certainly wouldn't be a member of the supporters trust would i? | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 17:15 - Mar 19 with 776 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 15:30 - Mar 19 by Chief |
- Maybe the council don't want us to expand, bigger stadium = bigger liability that the council may not want to take back on. Obviously different situation to Burnley.
- The trust members entered the football club with full knowledge of their fellow share holders. That is a completely different landscape now. Obviously different situation to Burnley.
- So the trust signing that tag along agreement (if any exists) would presumably mean the trust selling to whoever the Americans sell up to and at the same price. Considering the Americans have several other business interests besides us, would that be wise for the trust? Come on now Resolven try for once to be an unbiased and answer that fairly.
- you can't guarantee the club when it's eventually sold will be for a price any higher than what legal action may gain. That's far far from certain.
- Maybe you should sign up and have a say and canvass the trust board to put it to another vote.... But you're already moaning that it's taken this long.... Preparations are still ongoing so assume the fees aren't finalised.
- its ok mate, you don't have to justify you lashing out and losing your cool. I bet there's plenty more like you bricking it too. Again, I'll leave you to cook up theories and guesses as to why people voted why they did. Pointless me telling you again, you're so unbalanced on the topic you'll just ignore and keep assuming and inventing these little stories.
- What's 30 years got to do with anything? Less than 30 years ago Burnley were in the equivalent of league 1. Did they base their bid on that!? No of course not, it's present day that really matters. And presently Burnley are in a very different situation to us, I've given you the differences over and over and none of them can be refuted can they?
- So here are back to the irrelevant figures again. Best if you just put them to the back of your mind. Saves disappointment for you IF we do go up and we don't start suddenly receiving bids. Let alone bids for just 21% or bids including 21% the Americans don't own.
- if i didn't believe in the 'club' i wouldn't be this invested and i certainly wouldn't be a member of the supporters trust would i? |
The club own the stadium and can expand it whether the council like it or not. The Council will not object to expansion as it creates local jobs in the economy and increases the value of the land when it is handed back to them in 2046 or whtever it is. The US people were the first owners of Swansea to actually give the 'ratepayers' any money back for their investment. The fans might not like the US people the ratepayer do though.
The Trust must have known the sellers would want to move on eventually and they would have to work with new owners at some point. It appears that they are unwilling to work with sophisticated foreign investors as distinct from those sellers who treated them so well.
Be clear with the Trust having only ever putting £200k into the club it is unrealistic to expect them to be allowed to select and verify any new owner. The sellers did their duty and found good responsible US owners for the club. Mr Silverstein again pointing out he is an investor not a speculator. The majority owners will not allow the tail to wag the dog. They have been here 5 years and counting with no indication of them wanting to leave. They are putting fresh money into the club not taking it out.
I cannot guarentee anything. The legal action will bring in cash to a maximum level of around 38% of the true Premier league price. 5 years have passed, and circumstances change. If the legal route was to be taken it should have been a writ in 2016. The Trust thinking was not clear leading to a 5 year drift. In that time many members of the Trust will have left or even passed away.
If the Trust do not want to be left at the church alone they must sign a 'drag on' agreement. This is the lot of minor shareholders. Alternatively they can take their chances on the open market and sell their holding privately with adverts in the Wall Street Journal and South China Sea Times or through an agent.
If the fees are not yet agreed I would suggest all is not well with the case.
I am not losing my cool. I want stone cool losers with a negative view of the club out of the ownership group. They are more trouble thn they are worth. Give me an optimistic 'Yank' over a dead wood 'Taff' any time of day. Mr Deadwood may love the club but that is neither here no there.
Strategic decisons need to be taken with decent time peiods in mind. 30 years is a good period in my view. It actually matches with the stadium ownership. You argued you could not compare Burnley with Swansea. I suggested you could now as over 30 years there has been relative parity.
Swansea city has a 30-50% chance of being in the Premier league this summer. it is not pie in the sky thinking. Going to court for 37% of the Premier league value of the club is bonkers. Over the CLN period Swansea could be promoted and relegated twice like Norwich.
I have no money in Swansea city way too high risk for me. I prefer Glaxosmithkline Beecham (annual 4% dividends) and know none of the sellers or anyone else at the club. If some thing is illogical and to the benefit only of third party Home counties agencies I think it is valid start to ask difficult questions. The fact that it is only you and I debating it suggest other members are out of their depth or do not give a fig.
They do not understand finance (The Trust are getting 0.15% interest) and they are not lawyers. They do understand football and can compare Swasnea with Burnley (over the medium to long term) . The Trust should therefore aim to make at least £35m for their holding assumng a return to the PL in the next 5 years.
It seem better for the member to take their chances on the playing field rather than in court. For one thing the rewards are much greater. | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 17:32 - Mar 19 with 776 views | Chief |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 17:15 - Mar 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The club own the stadium and can expand it whether the council like it or not. The Council will not object to expansion as it creates local jobs in the economy and increases the value of the land when it is handed back to them in 2046 or whtever it is. The US people were the first owners of Swansea to actually give the 'ratepayers' any money back for their investment. The fans might not like the US people the ratepayer do though.
The Trust must have known the sellers would want to move on eventually and they would have to work with new owners at some point. It appears that they are unwilling to work with sophisticated foreign investors as distinct from those sellers who treated them so well.
Be clear with the Trust having only ever putting £200k into the club it is unrealistic to expect them to be allowed to select and verify any new owner. The sellers did their duty and found good responsible US owners for the club. Mr Silverstein again pointing out he is an investor not a speculator. The majority owners will not allow the tail to wag the dog. They have been here 5 years and counting with no indication of them wanting to leave. They are putting fresh money into the club not taking it out.
I cannot guarentee anything. The legal action will bring in cash to a maximum level of around 38% of the true Premier league price. 5 years have passed, and circumstances change. If the legal route was to be taken it should have been a writ in 2016. The Trust thinking was not clear leading to a 5 year drift. In that time many members of the Trust will have left or even passed away.
If the Trust do not want to be left at the church alone they must sign a 'drag on' agreement. This is the lot of minor shareholders. Alternatively they can take their chances on the open market and sell their holding privately with adverts in the Wall Street Journal and South China Sea Times or through an agent.
If the fees are not yet agreed I would suggest all is not well with the case.
I am not losing my cool. I want stone cool losers with a negative view of the club out of the ownership group. They are more trouble thn they are worth. Give me an optimistic 'Yank' over a dead wood 'Taff' any time of day. Mr Deadwood may love the club but that is neither here no there.
Strategic decisons need to be taken with decent time peiods in mind. 30 years is a good period in my view. It actually matches with the stadium ownership. You argued you could not compare Burnley with Swansea. I suggested you could now as over 30 years there has been relative parity.
Swansea city has a 30-50% chance of being in the Premier league this summer. it is not pie in the sky thinking. Going to court for 37% of the Premier league value of the club is bonkers. Over the CLN period Swansea could be promoted and relegated twice like Norwich.
I have no money in Swansea city way too high risk for me. I prefer Glaxosmithkline Beecham (annual 4% dividends) and know none of the sellers or anyone else at the club. If some thing is illogical and to the benefit only of third party Home counties agencies I think it is valid start to ask difficult questions. The fact that it is only you and I debating it suggest other members are out of their depth or do not give a fig.
They do not understand finance (The Trust are getting 0.15% interest) and they are not lawyers. They do understand football and can compare Swasnea with Burnley (over the medium to long term) . The Trust should therefore aim to make at least £35m for their holding assumng a return to the PL in the next 5 years.
It seem better for the member to take their chances on the playing field rather than in court. For one thing the rewards are much greater. |
Yea I'm not reading that on a Friday night.
Its been done to death.
Legal action is going to go ahead.  | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 17:55 - Mar 19 with 769 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 17:32 - Mar 19 by Chief |
Yea I'm not reading that on a Friday night.
Its been done to death.
Legal action is going to go ahead. |
You always demand the last word Chief. Its the way you operate.
The random unwarrant ted ..... line is your way of buying time. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Yanks good owners discuss on 18:29 - Mar 19 with 744 views | onehunglow |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 17:55 - Mar 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You always demand the last word Chief. Its the way you operate.
The random unwarrant ted ..... line is your way of buying time. |
And you are Walter Mitty | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 19:28 - Mar 19 with 756 views | vetchonian |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 18:29 - Mar 19 by onehunglow |
And you are Walter Mitty |
no Huw Jenkins cousin | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:00 - Mar 19 with 748 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 19:28 - Mar 19 by vetchonian |
no Huw Jenkins cousin |
Avoid the arguments and target the poster by declaring the poster biassed by way of being family of those being taken to court.
It makes no difference. The Burnley sale was for a valuation of £200m. Swansea are comparable with Burnley over the medium term. That means the Trust should be going for an agreed sale price of £42m in the medium term not £14m forced sale price in the short terms. A whopping £28m difference. The fool and is money is easily parted. [Post edited 19 Mar 2021 22:01]
| |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:15 - Mar 19 with 744 views | Chief |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:00 - Mar 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Avoid the arguments and target the poster by declaring the poster biassed by way of being family of those being taken to court.
It makes no difference. The Burnley sale was for a valuation of £200m. Swansea are comparable with Burnley over the medium term. That means the Trust should be going for an agreed sale price of £42m in the medium term not £14m forced sale price in the short terms. A whopping £28m difference. The fool and is money is easily parted. [Post edited 19 Mar 2021 22:01]
|
Too many moving parts and stars that need to align to do a Burnley unfortunately. Nice dream though. Best move on. | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:31 - Mar 19 with 738 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:15 - Mar 19 by Chief |
Too many moving parts and stars that need to align to do a Burnley unfortunately. Nice dream though. Best move on. |
Only one moving star and you know it. PROMOTION. The chances of this moving star is actually about 35% if the lads can come back refreshed and focussed from the break. | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:39 - Mar 19 with 736 views | Chief |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:31 - Mar 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Only one moving star and you know it. PROMOTION. The chances of this moving star is actually about 35% if the lads can come back refreshed and focussed from the break. |
So as soon as promotion is assured that sweet sweet Burnley level money will instantly turn up in the trust's bank account? | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:50 - Mar 19 with 731 views | Garyjack |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:39 - Mar 19 by Chief |
So as soon as promotion is assured that sweet sweet Burnley level money will instantly turn up in the trust's bank account? |
Yep, investors the world over are lining up ready with their £200m should we get promotion. Hey, there could even be a bidding war such would be the potential interest, and the trust could yet end up with more money than Resloven has predicted in his wildest of fantasies! |  | | |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:55 - Mar 19 with 721 views | Chief |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:50 - Mar 19 by Garyjack |
Yep, investors the world over are lining up ready with their £200m should we get promotion. Hey, there could even be a bidding war such would be the potential interest, and the trust could yet end up with more money than Resloven has predicted in his wildest of fantasies! |
Wow and these lads with cash on the hip are going to ignore the fact that we don't own our ground, have some debt, don't have a particularly valuable squad and have wangled a deal with the Americans that they're prepared to cut the Trust in on too!
What a result. | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:56 - Mar 19 with 720 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:39 - Mar 19 by Chief |
So as soon as promotion is assured that sweet sweet Burnley level money will instantly turn up in the trust's bank account? |
If the Trust wants £42m it will need some good luck patience and have to do some negiociating in a warm and friendly environment with nice people like Mr Silverstein and Mr Levien. Regretibly it will involve some work. Wheter they like it or not the US people and the remaining sellers are business partners and all in the same boat.
It will not however have to go to court where their people could go through a rough cross examnation and possible public ridicule. It will not have to give one third of it away although tax will have to be paid if they win.
The consequnces of losing are still to be determined. Instinct tells me losing is the most likely outcome as it is professionals with a financial stake v amateurs with everything to lose and nothing to gain. | |
| |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 23:06 - Mar 19 with 715 views | Chief |
| Yanks good owners discuss on 22:56 - Mar 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If the Trust wants £42m it will need some good luck patience and have to do some negiociating in a warm and friendly environment with nice people like Mr Silverstein and Mr Levien. Regretibly it will involve some work. Wheter they like it or not the US people and the remaining sellers are business partners and all in the same boat.
It will not however have to go to court where their people could go through a rough cross examnation and possible public ridicule. It will not have to give one third of it away although tax will have to be paid if they win.
The consequnces of losing are still to be determined. Instinct tells me losing is the most likely outcome as it is professionals with a financial stake v amateurs with everything to lose and nothing to gain. |
Why would they need any luck and patience?
I thought this plan was nailed on.
Sounds like you're starting to doubt the Burnley masterplan model | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
