| Trust statement 20:05 - Jun 13 with 28959 views | Joe_bradshaw |
The court case is happening at last.
Thanks Joe, a little bit from me to everyone.
Hi folks, this is clearly a topic many enjoy commenting on, but please remain consistent in your responses avoiding potential slurs on any characters involved and remain objective.
Thanks ðŸ‘
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Trust statement on 22:08 - Jun 22 with 1304 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 21:52 - Jun 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Get your calculator out and work out how much money the US people need to invest in Swansea city to dilute the SCST to 1% holding assuming the club is valued currently at £50m.
The SCST highlighted the risk of dilution as a reason for going to court. [Post edited 22 Jun 2021 21:53]
|
And that risk exists and is a valid reason to do just that.
Which you can't seem to comprehend. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 22:24 - Jun 22 with 1270 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 22:08 - Jun 22 by Chief |
And that risk exists and is a valid reason to do just that.
Which you can't seem to comprehend. |
Get you calculator out and provide your sums. If not speak to someone who does.
Quoting the clubs valuation as £2m means the club in in league 2 or the national league. SCST holding of 20% is worth £400,000 then. But they have £800k in the bank. They can buy another 20% and have 40% of the club. In that case dilution is not the problem is it? |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 22:39 - Jun 22 with 1252 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 22:24 - Jun 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Get you calculator out and provide your sums. If not speak to someone who does.
Quoting the clubs valuation as £2m means the club in in league 2 or the national league. SCST holding of 20% is worth £400,000 then. But they have £800k in the bank. They can buy another 20% and have 40% of the club. In that case dilution is not the problem is it? |
See, you still don't get it. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 23:15 - Jun 22 with 1223 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 22:39 - Jun 22 by Chief |
See, you still don't get it. |
Present your sums. Words will not do. This is a mathemantical issue. It is one of the pillars of the SCST and mathematically it cannot be spun away.
The SCST cannot be diluted to nothing or even close to nothing without huge investment. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 06:41 - Jun 23 with 1168 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 23:15 - Jun 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Present your sums. Words will not do. This is a mathemantical issue. It is one of the pillars of the SCST and mathematically it cannot be spun away.
The SCST cannot be diluted to nothing or even close to nothing without huge investment. |
Read what people have been writing. Not your own fantasies now. Actually read what people have written. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 10:56 - Jun 23 with 1112 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 22:24 - Jun 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Get you calculator out and provide your sums. If not speak to someone who does.
Quoting the clubs valuation as £2m means the club in in league 2 or the national league. SCST holding of 20% is worth £400,000 then. But they have £800k in the bank. They can buy another 20% and have 40% of the club. In that case dilution is not the problem is it? |
Nope.
Quoting the clubs value at £2m simply means that’s what the owners (whatever owners at whatever time) have decided it is.
The Trust could not invest if the owners did not want it to, they do not have sufficient % of the club to prevent a special resolution waiving preemption rights.
The only recourse is court for a prejudice against the minority. Which is the same as is happening now and you can’t stop banging on about how bad it is.
You don’t get it. You don’t read posts. You are either spectacularly slow at picking stuff up or you are trolling.
I see your latest threat is staff redundancies. Along with selling all the players and increasing season ticket prices. Someone certainly doesn’t fancy their day in court do they… |  | | |
| Trust statement on 11:58 - Jun 23 with 1083 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 10:56 - Jun 23 by londonlisa2001 |
Nope.
Quoting the clubs value at £2m simply means that’s what the owners (whatever owners at whatever time) have decided it is.
The Trust could not invest if the owners did not want it to, they do not have sufficient % of the club to prevent a special resolution waiving preemption rights.
The only recourse is court for a prejudice against the minority. Which is the same as is happening now and you can’t stop banging on about how bad it is.
You don’t get it. You don’t read posts. You are either spectacularly slow at picking stuff up or you are trolling.
I see your latest threat is staff redundancies. Along with selling all the players and increasing season ticket prices. Someone certainly doesn’t fancy their day in court do they… |
Championship clubs mid table with out debts are currently valued around £40-60m perhaps. Derby was on offer for around £60m according to reports. Valuing them at £2m is therefore 5% of their actual value at best. The academy facility alone cost £7m. I am no lawyer but to do this could surely be considered fraudulent? Do you believe the major shareholders would contemplate this?
Even using this £2m valuation, for a 20% holding the majority owners would need £38m to dilute to next to nothing (say 1%). There are also other local investors involved. The SCST could get significiantly diluted but it will not be "easy".
SCST seem to be complaining about the general lot of the 'minor investors' and things that "could" happen. One wonders why they bought shares in the first place and why they have never sold any if they fear being squeeezed out.
The SCST have a pitful £800k in the bank and think they can now easily be squeezed out of the club. What have they been doing for 19 years if that is the case? [Post edited 23 Jun 2021 12:04]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:10 - Jun 23 with 1075 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 11:58 - Jun 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Championship clubs mid table with out debts are currently valued around £40-60m perhaps. Derby was on offer for around £60m according to reports. Valuing them at £2m is therefore 5% of their actual value at best. The academy facility alone cost £7m. I am no lawyer but to do this could surely be considered fraudulent? Do you believe the major shareholders would contemplate this?
Even using this £2m valuation, for a 20% holding the majority owners would need £38m to dilute to next to nothing (say 1%). There are also other local investors involved. The SCST could get significiantly diluted but it will not be "easy".
SCST seem to be complaining about the general lot of the 'minor investors' and things that "could" happen. One wonders why they bought shares in the first place and why they have never sold any if they fear being squeeezed out.
The SCST have a pitful £800k in the bank and think they can now easily be squeezed out of the club. What have they been doing for 19 years if that is the case? [Post edited 23 Jun 2021 12:04]
|
Adhering to a shareholders agreement that prevented it? No one previously had a big enough stake to enable it to happen. Getting in excess 75% of the voting rights is what allows it…
Again we are not necessarily talking about these owners doing it though are we. We are talking about anyone that could ever own the club.
It would be a prejudice against the minority, yes. Which would bring us to where we are now.
This is like shelling peas, honestly. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust statement on 12:43 - Jun 23 with 1048 views | BillyChong |
| Trust statement on 11:58 - Jun 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Championship clubs mid table with out debts are currently valued around £40-60m perhaps. Derby was on offer for around £60m according to reports. Valuing them at £2m is therefore 5% of their actual value at best. The academy facility alone cost £7m. I am no lawyer but to do this could surely be considered fraudulent? Do you believe the major shareholders would contemplate this?
Even using this £2m valuation, for a 20% holding the majority owners would need £38m to dilute to next to nothing (say 1%). There are also other local investors involved. The SCST could get significiantly diluted but it will not be "easy".
SCST seem to be complaining about the general lot of the 'minor investors' and things that "could" happen. One wonders why they bought shares in the first place and why they have never sold any if they fear being squeeezed out.
The SCST have a pitful £800k in the bank and think they can now easily be squeezed out of the club. What have they been doing for 19 years if that is the case? [Post edited 23 Jun 2021 12:04]
|
Fraudulent? Reminds me of Jenkins and his ‘minute taking’ not to mention the shareholders agreement | | | |
| Trust statement on 13:02 - Jun 23 with 1033 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 11:58 - Jun 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Championship clubs mid table with out debts are currently valued around £40-60m perhaps. Derby was on offer for around £60m according to reports. Valuing them at £2m is therefore 5% of their actual value at best. The academy facility alone cost £7m. I am no lawyer but to do this could surely be considered fraudulent? Do you believe the major shareholders would contemplate this?
Even using this £2m valuation, for a 20% holding the majority owners would need £38m to dilute to next to nothing (say 1%). There are also other local investors involved. The SCST could get significiantly diluted but it will not be "easy".
SCST seem to be complaining about the general lot of the 'minor investors' and things that "could" happen. One wonders why they bought shares in the first place and why they have never sold any if they fear being squeeezed out.
The SCST have a pitful £800k in the bank and think they can now easily be squeezed out of the club. What have they been doing for 19 years if that is the case? [Post edited 23 Jun 2021 12:04]
|
The trust only have a 'pitiful' 800k in the bank because they weren't given a fair opportunity to sell their shares.
Your lack of awareness is startling. [Post edited 23 Jun 2021 13:03]
| |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:58 - Jun 23 with 983 views | ATFV |
I'll tell you what the Trust has been doing for the last 19 years - they've been playing a full and pivotal role in first saving the club, and then seeing it rise up the Leagues. As a significant stakeholder and with Board representation, the Trust were just as much a part of the decision making process as the likes of Jenkins, Dineen or Katzen.
Indeed, Messrs Penny and Keefe - a pair of Directors who were also heavily involved in our success. What was the thanks they got? Jenkins, Dineen and the Americans trying to pressure them into resigning their positions and when they wouldn't, the former pair MAKING UP A FICTITIOUS BOARD MEETING and sending fake Minutes to Companies House to try to oust them illegally.
I'm sure this Res fella will stop playing with his train sets long enough to try and spin that in a way that shows Jenkins/Dineen/Americans as misunderstood heroes for that incident , whilst the rest of the planet can just see the real evidence for themselves from the resulting legal case that they lost at an employment tribunal.
This Res fella should also stop dissing the Trust - and by extension Swansea City Supporters - and remember that a certain Leon Britton was instrumental in our rise and success. And it was the Trust and the fans that raised the money to sign the lad...Mindy freakin' Kaling didn't throw even a cent into the Battle for Britton!! [Post edited 23 Jun 2021 15:46]
|  | | |
| Trust statement on 15:44 - Jun 23 with 923 views | shaggyrogers |
| Trust statement on 10:56 - Jun 23 by londonlisa2001 |
Nope.
Quoting the clubs value at £2m simply means that’s what the owners (whatever owners at whatever time) have decided it is.
The Trust could not invest if the owners did not want it to, they do not have sufficient % of the club to prevent a special resolution waiving preemption rights.
The only recourse is court for a prejudice against the minority. Which is the same as is happening now and you can’t stop banging on about how bad it is.
You don’t get it. You don’t read posts. You are either spectacularly slow at picking stuff up or you are trolling.
I see your latest threat is staff redundancies. Along with selling all the players and increasing season ticket prices. Someone certainly doesn’t fancy their day in court do they… |
Lisa. If the recourse in court is for prejudice against the trust then who do the trust seek recourse from ?
Is it the sellers, buyers or both ?
All quite confusing . | | | |
| Trust statement on 15:48 - Jun 23 with 915 views | ATFV |
| Trust statement on 15:44 - Jun 23 by shaggyrogers |
Lisa. If the recourse in court is for prejudice against the trust then who do the trust seek recourse from ?
Is it the sellers, buyers or both ?
All quite confusing . |
I may be wrong (I had to correct one part of my post above) and I'm sure Lisa will correct me if I am, but the impending litigation is against both those parties, buyers and sellers. I believe the original case was against the buyers only but that changed after a lot more work was done in the aftermath of the withdrawal of the offer that members voted to accept. | | | |
| Trust statement on 16:19 - Jun 23 with 902 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 13:02 - Jun 23 by Chief |
The trust only have a 'pitiful' 800k in the bank because they weren't given a fair opportunity to sell their shares.
Your lack of awareness is startling. [Post edited 23 Jun 2021 13:03]
|
As far as am aware no one has stoppped them selling their shares. If I sell my car Ideclare it is for sale and advertise the fact. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 16:23 - Jun 23 with 898 views | vetchonian |
| Trust statement on 16:19 - Jun 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As far as am aware no one has stoppped them selling their shares. If I sell my car Ideclare it is for sale and advertise the fact. |
Chief et al lets stop replying to this stooge.
His aim to to help the sellouts in discrediting the court case...lets just ignore him lets him peddle mistruths which if he continues may end up with some legal action against him | |
| |
| Trust statement on 16:47 - Jun 23 with 886 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 16:23 - Jun 23 by vetchonian |
Chief et al lets stop replying to this stooge.
His aim to to help the sellouts in discrediting the court case...lets just ignore him lets him peddle mistruths which if he continues may end up with some legal action against him |
The court case is bad for the club in my opinion. £20m+ coming from the clubs owners will do the club no good whatsoever from what I can see. Can anyone guarentee the consqences will not lead to job losses, players sales, withdrawal of the convertible loan note and season price hikes? Will bad blood and dirty washing in court affect advertisers?
Can you guarentee none of these things will happen Vetchonian? I think for what its worth all these things are more than possible. What do you think?
It could be concievable that there is some "long term" benefit. Ireamin convinced. A business investment plan perhaps? I have asked what will they do with the money. Nothing. In fact I was told it was none of my business. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:12 - Jun 23 with 874 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 16:19 - Jun 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As far as am aware no one has stoppped them selling their shares. If I sell my car Ideclare it is for sale and advertise the fact. |
I see you're continuing your campaign of blissful (and convenient) ignorance. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:17 - Jun 23 with 861 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 16:47 - Jun 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The court case is bad for the club in my opinion. £20m+ coming from the clubs owners will do the club no good whatsoever from what I can see. Can anyone guarentee the consqences will not lead to job losses, players sales, withdrawal of the convertible loan note and season price hikes? Will bad blood and dirty washing in court affect advertisers?
Can you guarentee none of these things will happen Vetchonian? I think for what its worth all these things are more than possible. What do you think?
It could be concievable that there is some "long term" benefit. Ireamin convinced. A business investment plan perhaps? I have asked what will they do with the money. Nothing. In fact I was told it was none of my business. |
I see some horrendous bullying of Res.
What if he isnt a stooge
What if he imply doesn't agree with the infallible Lisa,who is giving u all a lesson in how to hang out of a fellow poster fully supported by her legendary status. It is staggering.
Plenty of fans will be confused and /or indeed apathetic about this action which is a side show -WELL TO MANY IT IS. Those who feel so passionate about this action feel it vindicates full on insults/abuse of Res,whi is no friend of mine.
The problem is sides have been elected and battle lines drawn.
And yes,it is NOT good for the club.
We need the club sold and ideally free of any Trust which raises the most crucial issue of all;who owns the club.
Get good owners and you get a good club that doesnt need a Trust to be a back top WHEN the club tumbles.
Off ya go,who's up first then. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:18 - Jun 23 with 866 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 16:47 - Jun 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The court case is bad for the club in my opinion. £20m+ coming from the clubs owners will do the club no good whatsoever from what I can see. Can anyone guarentee the consqences will not lead to job losses, players sales, withdrawal of the convertible loan note and season price hikes? Will bad blood and dirty washing in court affect advertisers?
Can you guarentee none of these things will happen Vetchonian? I think for what its worth all these things are more than possible. What do you think?
It could be concievable that there is some "long term" benefit. Ireamin convinced. A business investment plan perhaps? I have asked what will they do with the money. Nothing. In fact I was told it was none of my business. |
Back to desperate scaremongering again.
The Americans could guarantee this won't lead to job losses. Season ticket prices will have to go back up at some point. You getting in the preemptive strike that it'll be be due to this action won't wash sorry.
Dirty washing and bad blood caused by the actions of the sellouts. The Americans have already gone to court and lost. Did bad blood and dirty washing affect advertising? Shouldn't they be lambasted for taking such a course of action? | |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:21 - Jun 23 with 859 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 17:18 - Jun 23 by Chief |
Back to desperate scaremongering again.
The Americans could guarantee this won't lead to job losses. Season ticket prices will have to go back up at some point. You getting in the preemptive strike that it'll be be due to this action won't wash sorry.
Dirty washing and bad blood caused by the actions of the sellouts. The Americans have already gone to court and lost. Did bad blood and dirty washing affect advertising? Shouldn't they be lambasted for taking such a course of action? |
Ideally,and I say ideally, we should free ourselves of the Trust and the current owners and be born again. Disharmony doesnt help anyone and this is a bitter dispute about the sale | |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:55 - Jun 23 with 843 views | ATFV |
| Trust statement on 17:18 - Jun 23 by Chief |
Back to desperate scaremongering again.
The Americans could guarantee this won't lead to job losses. Season ticket prices will have to go back up at some point. You getting in the preemptive strike that it'll be be due to this action won't wash sorry.
Dirty washing and bad blood caused by the actions of the sellouts. The Americans have already gone to court and lost. Did bad blood and dirty washing affect advertising? Shouldn't they be lambasted for taking such a course of action? |
If the Americans did any of the scare story things that have been suggested then they'd simply be cutting their own throats. Get rid of staff and things like commercial income will fall as there are reduced staff working in that department; hike up season ticket prices and watch as sales fall, reducing income. All of these things would affect the success and prosperity of the club and therefore make the asset they bought even more of a drag for them.
They've already watched as the club's value has tumbled due to relegation and they already know that they have no chance of selling and getting their money back whilst we remain in the Championship. The last thing they need is to alienate a big chunk of their "customers" or reduce the chances of a return to the Premier League - which is the only way they'll be able to sell the club and get anywhere near their money back.
Of course, what Res doesn't want to admit is that if the Trust wins the case and the Americans are instructed to buy the Trust's shares at the same price they paid to Jenkins & Co., the Americans likely recourse to salvage their £20m won't be via the club, it will be from the sellers. After all, it was jenkins and Dineen that convinced them that there was no shareholders agreement and that the Trust would never be any trouble. If a court of law rules differently then I'd imagine that the Americans will go after the sellers to get their money back. | | | |
| Trust statement on 18:23 - Jun 23 with 823 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 17:55 - Jun 23 by ATFV |
If the Americans did any of the scare story things that have been suggested then they'd simply be cutting their own throats. Get rid of staff and things like commercial income will fall as there are reduced staff working in that department; hike up season ticket prices and watch as sales fall, reducing income. All of these things would affect the success and prosperity of the club and therefore make the asset they bought even more of a drag for them.
They've already watched as the club's value has tumbled due to relegation and they already know that they have no chance of selling and getting their money back whilst we remain in the Championship. The last thing they need is to alienate a big chunk of their "customers" or reduce the chances of a return to the Premier League - which is the only way they'll be able to sell the club and get anywhere near their money back.
Of course, what Res doesn't want to admit is that if the Trust wins the case and the Americans are instructed to buy the Trust's shares at the same price they paid to Jenkins & Co., the Americans likely recourse to salvage their £20m won't be via the club, it will be from the sellers. After all, it was jenkins and Dineen that convinced them that there was no shareholders agreement and that the Trust would never be any trouble. If a court of law rules differently then I'd imagine that the Americans will go after the sellers to get their money back. |
Indeed I have alluded to this previously and 'Resloven' blissfully glosses over the possibility of the Americans going after the sellouts.
The Americans have previously been quoted as saying they were not aware of any shareholders agreement when they bought their shares and there were allegedly attempts from the sellers to destroy/invalidate the agreement.
Sounds quite suspicious to me. Why oh why would the sellouts go those lengths I wonder??? | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:03 - Jun 23 with 793 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 18:23 - Jun 23 by Chief |
Indeed I have alluded to this previously and 'Resloven' blissfully glosses over the possibility of the Americans going after the sellouts.
The Americans have previously been quoted as saying they were not aware of any shareholders agreement when they bought their shares and there were allegedly attempts from the sellers to destroy/invalidate the agreement.
Sounds quite suspicious to me. Why oh why would the sellouts go those lengths I wonder??? |
I am concerned about the overall welfare of the club so not really concerned about other people involved despite ascertions from others. "Stooge" etc. I suspect the prospect of the US people losing the case has already been discussed and some agreement between them is already in place. Some are existing shareholders. These are people that can network discuss things and make plans, solutions and agreements without lawyers taking a cut. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:05 - Jun 23 with 791 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Trust statement on 18:23 - Jun 23 by Chief |
Indeed I have alluded to this previously and 'Resloven' blissfully glosses over the possibility of the Americans going after the sellouts.
The Americans have previously been quoted as saying they were not aware of any shareholders agreement when they bought their shares and there were allegedly attempts from the sellers to destroy/invalidate the agreement.
Sounds quite suspicious to me. Why oh why would the sellouts go those lengths I wonder??? |
There were attempts by the sellers to nullify the agreement. The Trust has a letter from the sellers’ solicitor offering them two seats on the board, one a full directorship and the other with observer status if they sign a waiver stating that the original Shareholders’ Agreement was not, and had never been, valid.
Jenkins later claimed that the shareholder agreement never existed. The shareholder agreement that his solicitor asked the Trust to waive never existed apparently. The Trust has the shareholder agreement with Jenkins’ signature on it. Jenkins makes up fictitious meetings and writes minutes of those fictitious meetings and pretends that agreements that bear his signature don’t exist. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:28 - Jun 23 with 782 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 19:03 - Jun 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am concerned about the overall welfare of the club so not really concerned about other people involved despite ascertions from others. "Stooge" etc. I suspect the prospect of the US people losing the case has already been discussed and some agreement between them is already in place. Some are existing shareholders. These are people that can network discuss things and make plans, solutions and agreements without lawyers taking a cut. |
I thought these were ruthless cut throat American beasts for whom appeasement isn't in their national vocabulary? But now they will have come to some agreement with the people who appear from the outside to have screwed them over.....
Out of character for them.
Remember Huw defied them previously and he was removed from his position within 48hours. And he hasn't attended a shareholders meeting since. I wouldn't be so confident that relations are as cordial as you like to believe. And there's every chance they could get a whole lot worse...... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
