By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Get out of our club. Fraudsters. Liars. Not fit to wear the badge. Promised the earth, give nothing.
GET OUT OF OUR CLUB.
[Post edited 3 Apr 2021 10:09]
Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
21% owner. They have only ever invested £200k into the club and much of that was from business donations.
They are not Lalngyfellach Womens institute. They shoud be able to manage money and investments not just pontiificate on fasionable social matters and decide where the Trust board member should sit on matchdays.
The day of reckoning is coming when they get severely diluted. They typify many Welsh youth that do nothing and simply hope to inherit their wealth from property inflation.
****RANDOM UNWARRANTED DIG AT SUPPORTERS TRUST ALERT****
As far as ridiculous posts go this has to be top 5.
We'll as you took the top four positions I was never gonna do any better.
Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
The Owners promised to take us to the nest level . Every fan can be excused for thinking that they had big money to put into our club. They didn't and our smartarse fans saw that was a lie all along.Well screw them.
Kaplan and Levien on 16:34 - Apr 3 by QJumpingJack
Let's remind ourselves what they promised when they took over in 2016. Have they delivered?
There are very few promises in this interview. Improving the commercial aspects,using Huw's experience, and following best practice. The sellers sold becuase they did not want to lose asset value and they were not inclinded to loan money to the club in the Championship.
Silverstein and Leviens group has have just done that. They have put £10m into the club in a pandemic and attempted to reinforce the team as efficiently as possible by two experiencd USA internationals at cost. One was crocked and the other sadly was not picked.
Noting inn the interview about injecting fresh capital. This will happen anyway and the Trust will be diluted. This is good news not bad news.
There are very few promises in this interview. Improving the commercial aspects,using Huw's experience, and following best practice. The sellers sold becuase they did not want to lose asset value and they were not inclinded to loan money to the club in the Championship.
Silverstein and Leviens group has have just done that. They have put £10m into the club in a pandemic and attempted to reinforce the team as efficiently as possible by two experiencd USA internationals at cost. One was crocked and the other sadly was not picked.
Noting inn the interview about injecting fresh capital. This will happen anyway and the Trust will be diluted. This is good news not bad news.
Kaplan and Levien on 18:45 - Apr 3 by QJumpingJack
More to review from Summer 2016 -
Here is the graph of $ v £. June 2016 was the disastrous Brexit decsion by the majority English voters which saw The Sterling worth $1.48 in May 2016 and $1,30 or so in July when the deal was closed.
There are very few promises in this interview. Improving the commercial aspects,using Huw's experience, and following best practice. The sellers sold becuase they did not want to lose asset value and they were not inclinded to loan money to the club in the Championship.
Silverstein and Leviens group has have just done that. They have put £10m into the club in a pandemic and attempted to reinforce the team as efficiently as possible by two experiencd USA internationals at cost. One was crocked and the other sadly was not picked.
Noting inn the interview about injecting fresh capital. This will happen anyway and the Trust will be diluted. This is good news not bad news.
Forgetting the upcoming legal action again????
To say dilution 'will' happen is not neccessarily the case is it!?
To say dilution 'will' happen is not neccessarily the case is it!?
There is no legal action as we speak. It only serves the London money men (and women) nobody else. It only makes sense if Swansea is heading to league 1 or 2.
The members were told there was "no other option". This was a false narrative.
Dillution will have to happen if the Trust do not sell shares and join future investment.
Would we appoint a manager that's got all the undoubted plus points of Cooper as well as the experience of working with senior players as well as being able to gain their respect, as well experience and success in the championship?
Cooper's got his faults but this is only his 2nd season in senior management. He's not going to be the finished article.
People need to be careful what they wish for because these finished articles are rare and expensive.
There is no legal action as we speak. It only serves the London money men (and women) nobody else. It only makes sense if Swansea is heading to league 1 or 2.
The members were told there was "no other option". This was a false narrative.
Dillution will have to happen if the Trust do not sell shares and join future investment.
There's no dilution as we speak either!
Dilution won't happen if the legal case goes ahead and finds in the trust's favour
Dilution won't happen if the legal case goes ahead and finds in the trust's favour
And that is likely to occur before any dilution.
I am no expert but I do not see the link. The Trust are considering the details of a divorce settlement and working out ways of how they can pay their funders. They will demand to sell all their holding at 2016 prices and 2016 share holding. If they win that is what they will get minus costs fees and tax which will be considerable.
If they lose the case they will be diluted and have a big bill to pay in cash or shares. This is presumably what they have been discussing behind closed doors if the funders do not think the case is strong. The Trust will lose a lot of money or share value whatever happens.
I am no expert but I do not see the link. The Trust are considering the details of a divorce settlement and working out ways of how they can pay their funders. They will demand to sell all their holding at 2016 prices and 2016 share holding. If they win that is what they will get minus costs fees and tax which will be considerable.
If they lose the case they will be diluted and have a big bill to pay in cash or shares. This is presumably what they have been discussing behind closed doors if the funders do not think the case is strong. The Trust will lose a lot of money or share value whatever happens.
If the trust were to win the case would they be diluted?
If the trust were to win the case would they be diluted?
What sort of question is that Chief? You seem relatively bright and ask good questions and come up with plausable arguments at times (sometime planted by others).
The legal case as I understand it is a 'divorce settlement' and a nasty one at that. The Trust did not even turn up for mediation citing it was pointless because the US big shots did not attend. Any Judge would assume that the parties are unable to work together.
The Trust if they win will recieve cash for their shares at the 2016 prices plus perhaps a little interest. I reckon about £13m. Fees and charges and commisions and tax could be as high as £8m. They will be ejected from the club and asked to remove their kiosks. If relations are poor they will be required perhaps to remove all mention of Swansea city from their name. It will be a cold moribund place unless they can find a new purpose in life such as charity work or as an active investment group.
Their absence will be welcomed by all other owners pleased to be shot of them. Once removed they can start paying dividends to themselves if Winter can generate small profits.
What sort of question is that Chief? You seem relatively bright and ask good questions and come up with plausable arguments at times (sometime planted by others).
The legal case as I understand it is a 'divorce settlement' and a nasty one at that. The Trust did not even turn up for mediation citing it was pointless because the US big shots did not attend. Any Judge would assume that the parties are unable to work together.
The Trust if they win will recieve cash for their shares at the 2016 prices plus perhaps a little interest. I reckon about £13m. Fees and charges and commisions and tax could be as high as £8m. They will be ejected from the club and asked to remove their kiosks. If relations are poor they will be required perhaps to remove all mention of Swansea city from their name. It will be a cold moribund place unless they can find a new purpose in life such as charity work or as an active investment group.
Their absence will be welcomed by all other owners pleased to be shot of them. Once removed they can start paying dividends to themselves if Winter can generate small profits.
[Post edited 4 Apr 2021 16:22]
How just how does theTrust winning 13 m help us.
We need to be sold to people willing to put some noughts to that figure. Nobody will consider buying a club with a civil war going on.
We need to be sold to people willing to put some noughts to that figure. Nobody will consider buying a club with a civil war going on.
We need unison
Theoretically as the members see it this will provide a war chest for when Mr Petty returns from Australia. This will sound very unlikely to sensible fellows like you and me but to the traummatised members it has traction.
Of course the members do not realise this is a nasty divorce and that they will never be invited back. The circumstance of their inclusion in 2002 was a one off historical opportunity driven by certain individuals who others can name better than me. It is noted that the buyers of Wrexham made no provision for the Wrexham Trust to stay involved. Smart business. The inclusion of the Trust into Swansea boardroom was in fact a mistake.
The £13m will be severerly eroded by inflation over a decade or two unless it converts into an actively managed financial trust employing professional management. The members have unwittingly voted to convert the football Trust either nto a financial service investment Trust or a decaying zombie fund.
One senses they have not planned for a post court case future. One can imagine membership falling off a cliff without any football club interest.
What sort of question is that Chief? You seem relatively bright and ask good questions and come up with plausable arguments at times (sometime planted by others).
The legal case as I understand it is a 'divorce settlement' and a nasty one at that. The Trust did not even turn up for mediation citing it was pointless because the US big shots did not attend. Any Judge would assume that the parties are unable to work together.
The Trust if they win will recieve cash for their shares at the 2016 prices plus perhaps a little interest. I reckon about £13m. Fees and charges and commisions and tax could be as high as £8m. They will be ejected from the club and asked to remove their kiosks. If relations are poor they will be required perhaps to remove all mention of Swansea city from their name. It will be a cold moribund place unless they can find a new purpose in life such as charity work or as an active investment group.
Their absence will be welcomed by all other owners pleased to be shot of them. Once removed they can start paying dividends to themselves if Winter can generate small profits.
The Trust will not get dilluted because they will not own any shares in theory. This is obvious. There is no relation between the court case and dilution. The Trust will have to pay considerable fees and costs to their funders in the case of winning the case and possibily also if they lose.
Being diluted is not a punishment or a penalty it is a pro rata reduction of share holding arising from not contributing to a pooled investments pro rata. They benefit from the investment but do not contribute. Dilution is fair to those that do pay up such as now in a time of a pandemic. The US owners will get brownie ponts in court for injecting money into the club (£10m?) and protecting local jobs.
The Trust will not get dilluted because they will not own any shares in theory. This is obvious. There is no relation between the court case and dilution. The Trust will have to pay considerable fees and costs to their funders in the case of winning the case and possibily also if they lose.
Being diluted is not a punishment or a penalty it is a pro rata reduction of share holding arising from not contributing to a pooled investments pro rata. They benefit from the investment but do not contribute. Dilution is fair to those that do pay up such as now in a time of a pandemic. The US owners will get brownie ponts in court for injecting money into the club (£10m?) and protecting local jobs.
[Post edited 4 Apr 2021 21:15]
Besides your usual propaganda which i won't bother addressing because it's been done repeatedly then....
You were false to state that dilution of the trust's shares 'will' happen. Disingenuous too. It will only happen under circumstances:
1- if the trust still has a holding which after the legal case it may well not.
and
2 - The Americans decide to convert to equity their loans which they may not.
Besides your usual propaganda which i won't bother addressing because it's been done repeatedly then....
You were false to state that dilution of the trust's shares 'will' happen. Disingenuous too. It will only happen under circumstances:
1- if the trust still has a holding which after the legal case it may well not.
and
2 - The Americans decide to convert to equity their loans which they may not.
Glad we got there eventually.
[Post edited 4 Apr 2021 21:21]
Dillution will happen. This is my opinion / prediction. It is not a fact. How could it be I am not Jake Silverstein?. Only he / Levien can make the dilution a certainty.
The CLN come to an end within 5 years as I understand it so the court case will have to be done and dusted in 4 and a half with a 'favourable' outcome. This sounds unlikely to me given that the trust moves very very slowly. Of course the Investors could convert before then subject to the agreement. They could convert before the case even starts.
It is my opinion Silverstein wants a holding in the club. He stated he was and investor not a speculator.
The club might not be abe to repay the loan with interest in 2025 is another issue. £11m+?
Dillution will happen. This is my opinion / prediction. It is not a fact. How could it be I am not Jake Silverstein?. Only he / Levien can make the dilution a certainty.
The CLN come to an end within 5 years as I understand it so the court case will have to be done and dusted in 4 and a half with a 'favourable' outcome. This sounds unlikely to me given that the trust moves very very slowly. Of course the Investors could convert before then subject to the agreement. They could convert before the case even starts.
It is my opinion Silverstein wants a holding in the club. He stated he was and investor not a speculator.
The club might not be abe to repay the loan with interest in 2025 is another issue. £11m+?
Ok glad you clarified your comment to it being your opinion that the trust's shares will be diluted.
This is despite evidence to the contrary but there we are.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
