| How long will we keep our u23 team going? 13:56 - Jun 3 with 2729 views | Swans9 |
I noticed that we had alot of trialists playing for us last season and with some being promoted to the first team we seem light on numbers. |  | | |  |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 08:47 - Jun 6 with 896 views | Chief |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 23:40 - Jun 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I think they will try to forget about the whole thing and keep kicking the can down the road. They will be say "possibly next week" in 5 years time. I want them to be either positive investors and a positive group in harmony with other owners or completely out of the way.
The best 'cop out' route is my suggestion of an independent review of their strategy of both legal action and future financial objectives given their apparent limitiations in investment options. They could publish the report like any good democratic group would do.
The objective will be to make money and have funds to buy the club back off the adminstrator in the event of other owners ceasing to fund the clubs debts.
The be of use as a 'protector of the faith' they need to cash in in the Premer league and invest in something that protects them from inflation. A target of a 5% holding would be sensible and using cash to maintain that holding as the club grows by natural inflation. This means inflation in ticket proceeds TV revenue and player valuations.
By maintaining the 5% holding they will be active investors helping the club as a whole and providing funds for development and growth of the club. If the club goes on a downward spiral their exposure will have been minimised and the worst that can happen is that the 5% holding is lost.
This is my advice but do not listen to me listen to a business strategy expert who can determine the best way forward once he or she understands the objectives of the SCST. Some time volunteers need help. |
What happens if the 'cop out' route finds the best option is to proceed with legal action? Considering the QCs analysis of the case, a legal experts opinion should hold a lot of weight with an independent reviewer.
I don't know why you're going on about 5%, it's not realistic. Difficult enough to sell the 21%, let alone 16%. |  |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 12:51 - Jun 6 with 849 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 08:47 - Jun 6 by Chief |
What happens if the 'cop out' route finds the best option is to proceed with legal action? Considering the QCs analysis of the case, a legal experts opinion should hold a lot of weight with an independent reviewer.
I don't know why you're going on about 5%, it's not realistic. Difficult enough to sell the 21%, let alone 16%. |
There is no chance whatsoever of any good business advisor BA recommending legal action. Even the judge said wit was a "last resort".
The SCST, as you know, need to use other people's money to fund their case. This is not a good start as they will want an arm and a leg. The BA could assess this independently. One intepretation of the very long delay is the reluctance of funders to get involved in what they see as a weak case . This is my interpretation.
5% is very realistic and probably the best option. Low financial exposure and a place on the board. Ideal. It should always have been the objectiive. A sympathetic owner might welcome this. A history of litigation will not help.
You are now complaining how difficult it is to sell their shares. The most likely buyers are the Levien group and Silvertstein. Silverstein claims to be an investor and has already put a few million into the club with the intension of buyng shares. The "sell outs" put potenetial buyers in fornt of the Trust twice.
The SCST did not want to sell in the Premier league and said so. Offers were made and not accepted in the Premier league.
In order to sell the SCST need to, reject the failed management of the past, devise a new strategy, repair poor relations with the US owners and the fellow Welsh owners and agree a deal with the US owners to be included in any future sale. They also need a business strategy about how they will invest any funds post sale as allowed by their constitution.
The intention would be to invest grow and reinvest back into the club as a minor investor at a later date. (perhaps decades later) [Post edited 6 Jun 2021 13:09]
|  |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 13:52 - Jun 6 with 835 views | Chief |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 12:51 - Jun 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is no chance whatsoever of any good business advisor BA recommending legal action. Even the judge said wit was a "last resort".
The SCST, as you know, need to use other people's money to fund their case. This is not a good start as they will want an arm and a leg. The BA could assess this independently. One intepretation of the very long delay is the reluctance of funders to get involved in what they see as a weak case . This is my interpretation.
5% is very realistic and probably the best option. Low financial exposure and a place on the board. Ideal. It should always have been the objectiive. A sympathetic owner might welcome this. A history of litigation will not help.
You are now complaining how difficult it is to sell their shares. The most likely buyers are the Levien group and Silvertstein. Silverstein claims to be an investor and has already put a few million into the club with the intension of buyng shares. The "sell outs" put potenetial buyers in fornt of the Trust twice.
The SCST did not want to sell in the Premier league and said so. Offers were made and not accepted in the Premier league.
In order to sell the SCST need to, reject the failed management of the past, devise a new strategy, repair poor relations with the US owners and the fellow Welsh owners and agree a deal with the US owners to be included in any future sale. They also need a business strategy about how they will invest any funds post sale as allowed by their constitution.
The intention would be to invest grow and reinvest back into the club as a minor investor at a later date. (perhaps decades later) [Post edited 6 Jun 2021 13:09]
|
Why wouldn't they? The QC as you know stated the trust had a strong case which of course you love to ignore.
So it does appear to be a very viable course of action to gain funds especially with being in the championship and the shares being worth less currently than at sale time.
The rest is just repeated waffle. No idea why you think Silverstein wants to buy them. You fail to ever explain why he wouldn't have already bid for them. But he hasn't and seemingly has no intention of doing so. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 14:21 - Jun 6 with 820 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 13:52 - Jun 6 by Chief |
Why wouldn't they? The QC as you know stated the trust had a strong case which of course you love to ignore.
So it does appear to be a very viable course of action to gain funds especially with being in the championship and the shares being worth less currently than at sale time.
The rest is just repeated waffle. No idea why you think Silverstein wants to buy them. You fail to ever explain why he wouldn't have already bid for them. But he hasn't and seemingly has no intention of doing so. |
The "strong case" does not seem to be getting anywhere. It does not seem strong enough for funders and insurers to get invloved at very high cost. Judging by recent cments that boat might have already sailed.
Litigation is a one way divorce. Thtre will be a greatly diminished chance of future collaberations with the business comunity to return to the club. From what you have told me there is no indication SCST can invest to stop denuadation by inflation.
Silverstein will not buy the SCST whle they are considering legal action against his friends and assscoiates, and presumably the SCST would not sell them. He is happy to buy discounted newly issued shares to help the club with cash that it can use, rather than give his money to the SCST who have no plan for it. Perhpas if Silverstein saw the SCST business plan he might consider it in the future. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 16:53 - Jun 6 with 803 views | Chief |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 14:21 - Jun 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The "strong case" does not seem to be getting anywhere. It does not seem strong enough for funders and insurers to get invloved at very high cost. Judging by recent cments that boat might have already sailed.
Litigation is a one way divorce. Thtre will be a greatly diminished chance of future collaberations with the business comunity to return to the club. From what you have told me there is no indication SCST can invest to stop denuadation by inflation.
Silverstein will not buy the SCST whle they are considering legal action against his friends and assscoiates, and presumably the SCST would not sell them. He is happy to buy discounted newly issued shares to help the club with cash that it can use, rather than give his money to the SCST who have no plan for it. Perhpas if Silverstein saw the SCST business plan he might consider it in the future. |
Probably best to reserve judgement on whether it'll go ahead until we hear a definitive statement from the trust. The last update still sounded positive to me.
Surely it's the most opportune time for Silverstein to get involved. He'd be taking an problem off the hands of the owners and he knows that in reality he could probably get them slightly cheaper than the going rate (at what the trust would get in court) as it would save hassle, time, money. But yet, still no bid....... | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 18:34 - Jun 6 with 783 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 16:53 - Jun 6 by Chief |
Probably best to reserve judgement on whether it'll go ahead until we hear a definitive statement from the trust. The last update still sounded positive to me.
Surely it's the most opportune time for Silverstein to get involved. He'd be taking an problem off the hands of the owners and he knows that in reality he could probably get them slightly cheaper than the going rate (at what the trust would get in court) as it would save hassle, time, money. But yet, still no bid....... |
I doubt the proposed legal action is of too much concern to the US owners. They certainly will not be dancing to the tune of a group of local accountants. Networking under the conditions of a threat will not and has not worked.
Neither is it clear what the SCST memebers actually want. I do not believe the 1000 members or so want a clean beak with the club, Their future is very grim indeed if they do not have the ability to invest their funds to protect it's value against inflation. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 19:20 - Jun 6 with 774 views | Chief |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 18:34 - Jun 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I doubt the proposed legal action is of too much concern to the US owners. They certainly will not be dancing to the tune of a group of local accountants. Networking under the conditions of a threat will not and has not worked.
Neither is it clear what the SCST memebers actually want. I do not believe the 1000 members or so want a clean beak with the club, Their future is very grim indeed if they do not have the ability to invest their funds to protect it's value against inflation. |
Well they were extremely blasé when not doing their due diligence when buying the club, so indeed it probably wouldn't surprise me if they did take that stance.....
I assume they may we'll start to take it seriously if / when a summons arrives.
Well the democratic vote occurred. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 22:44 - Jun 6 with 738 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 19:20 - Jun 6 by Chief |
Well they were extremely blasé when not doing their due diligence when buying the club, so indeed it probably wouldn't surprise me if they did take that stance.....
I assume they may we'll start to take it seriously if / when a summons arrives.
Well the democratic vote occurred. |
I do not think the members did much due dillgence when voting to go to court. In fact I doubt many even know what it means. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 07:01 - Jun 7 with 721 views | Chief |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 22:44 - Jun 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I do not think the members did much due dillgence when voting to go to court. In fact I doubt many even know what it means. |
Haha whey.
Baseless insults with no content related to the topic being discussed. You've surpassed yourself Resolven. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 20:50 - Jun 7 with 653 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 07:01 - Jun 7 by Chief |
Haha whey.
Baseless insults with no content related to the topic being discussed. You've surpassed yourself Resolven. |
You brought up the "due dilligence" issue. No one at Swansea does any aparently. The sellers did aparently none on Moores group in 2015, and none on the Levien and co group in 2016, and the Levien group did none on the club aparently in 2016.
The members on this board appear to have no idea what they would do with any funds or any idea what they actually can invest in other than Swansea city. Gary claims they cannot invest at all on the markets.
If they create bad blood their only future investment route might therefore be closed. They cracked on anyway. Where was the due diligence in that?.
Ablitiy to invest on UK and global markets is the decsive factor in whether the SCST should cash in and become serious players. If they cannot invest there is little point in holding cash as it devalues 2-3% every year depending on inflation. Football inflation may take Swansea shares well out of their league. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 20:55 - Jun 7 with 652 views | Chief |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 20:50 - Jun 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You brought up the "due dilligence" issue. No one at Swansea does any aparently. The sellers did aparently none on Moores group in 2015, and none on the Levien and co group in 2016, and the Levien group did none on the club aparently in 2016.
The members on this board appear to have no idea what they would do with any funds or any idea what they actually can invest in other than Swansea city. Gary claims they cannot invest at all on the markets.
If they create bad blood their only future investment route might therefore be closed. They cracked on anyway. Where was the due diligence in that?.
Ablitiy to invest on UK and global markets is the decsive factor in whether the SCST should cash in and become serious players. If they cannot invest there is little point in holding cash as it devalues 2-3% every year depending on inflation. Football inflation may take Swansea shares well out of their league. |
Indeed I did and then you went on an unwarranted 'whatabouttery' tangent with no link to my comment.
Feel free to address it properly when you feel like instead of deflecting elsewhere. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 23:43 - Jun 7 with 625 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 20:55 - Jun 7 by Chief |
Indeed I did and then you went on an unwarranted 'whatabouttery' tangent with no link to my comment.
Feel free to address it properly when you feel like instead of deflecting elsewhere. |
I spend a lot of time adressing you points but it usually ends up with some sort of cheap shot. Working out what you point was is the first problem.
What can the SCST invest in once they get any cash Chief? Do some "due dilligence" and find out. The funder's 40% will be paying big bonusess and thier London based shareholders. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 12:44 - Jun 8 with 583 views | Chief |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 23:43 - Jun 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I spend a lot of time adressing you points but it usually ends up with some sort of cheap shot. Working out what you point was is the first problem.
What can the SCST invest in once they get any cash Chief? Do some "due dilligence" and find out. The funder's 40% will be paying big bonusess and thier London based shareholders. |
And still deflecting from my point I see, with the usual guesswork over fees thrown in for good measure. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 13:05 - Jun 8 with 578 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 12:44 - Jun 8 by Chief |
And still deflecting from my point I see, with the usual guesswork over fees thrown in for good measure. |
I have read a few reports of meeting with the lawyers and others which revealed the eyewatering sums for legal fees. It is still my hope the SCST will see sense and take a more constructive approaach. | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 13:21 - Jun 8 with 577 views | Chief |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 13:05 - Jun 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have read a few reports of meeting with the lawyers and others which revealed the eyewatering sums for legal fees. It is still my hope the SCST will see sense and take a more constructive approaach. |
What such reports are these then? Got any links? | |
| |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 18:43 - Jun 8 with 532 views | BillyChong |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 12:51 - Jun 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is no chance whatsoever of any good business advisor BA recommending legal action. Even the judge said wit was a "last resort".
The SCST, as you know, need to use other people's money to fund their case. This is not a good start as they will want an arm and a leg. The BA could assess this independently. One intepretation of the very long delay is the reluctance of funders to get involved in what they see as a weak case . This is my interpretation.
5% is very realistic and probably the best option. Low financial exposure and a place on the board. Ideal. It should always have been the objectiive. A sympathetic owner might welcome this. A history of litigation will not help.
You are now complaining how difficult it is to sell their shares. The most likely buyers are the Levien group and Silvertstein. Silverstein claims to be an investor and has already put a few million into the club with the intension of buyng shares. The "sell outs" put potenetial buyers in fornt of the Trust twice.
The SCST did not want to sell in the Premier league and said so. Offers were made and not accepted in the Premier league.
In order to sell the SCST need to, reject the failed management of the past, devise a new strategy, repair poor relations with the US owners and the fellow Welsh owners and agree a deal with the US owners to be included in any future sale. They also need a business strategy about how they will invest any funds post sale as allowed by their constitution.
The intention would be to invest grow and reinvest back into the club as a minor investor at a later date. (perhaps decades later) [Post edited 6 Jun 2021 13:09]
|
Yeah, but weren’t those offers made back in the premier league withdrawn and amended by the Americans to the point at which the Trust would have been crazy to accept? You know this. | | | |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 21:35 - Jun 8 with 503 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| How long will we keep our u23 team going? on 18:43 - Jun 8 by BillyChong |
Yeah, but weren’t those offers made back in the premier league withdrawn and amended by the Americans to the point at which the Trust would have been crazy to accept? You know this. |
The US people say they offered the same terms to the SCST as were offered to the other selling shareholders. The SCST had stated selling shares was not their preference. The other sellers who remained as shareholders in the club accepted them. The SCST chose not to accept these terms. It is no surprise between 2015 -2016 they stated they did not want to sell.
From my understanding, these terms may have included perhaps preferential terms for the buyer with regard to tag on and drag on terms and the status of the voting rights of the unsold shares may have been an issue.
As I understand it the part sellers accepted their remaining share would not vote carrying and they agreed that in an event of a sale they would not be excluded. This was good for them. On the downside they would in the event of a fire sale be required to accept a low price for their remaining shares. This is a risk they were prepared to take.
The SCST did not want to take this risk and prefered to hold their share in the Premier League. Then can of course sell their shares to anyone of their chosing at a time of their chosing.
By taking this route they were at risk of relegation and dilution as they hold insufficent funds to support a 21% holding which is way too big for them and always was.
However Premier league infaltaion is great such that Burnley is worth £200m twice the value of Swansea in 2016. The value of the SCST holding in the PL even in a diluted form will be welll in excess of the 2016 price. They are high risk players even if they are not aware of it.
You pay your money and take you choice. The SCST might still come out of it smelling of roses. I would not be too vexed if I was them. Swansea was 90 minuites from the promised land ad doubling the 2016 valuation. [Post edited 9 Jun 2021 19:41]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.