| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:09 - Oct 15 with 921 views | Algorfajack |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:23 - Oct 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is likely that the 21% shareholder will get nothing like what the so called "sell outs" got. As they cannot fund the case it is likely that costs will be (my estimate) around 30-40% when all said and done.
I do not agree with working people handing over millions of their holding in a 'not for profit' body they run over to the London ruling elite of lawyer, insurers and financial institutions (to make huge profits). Be sure some young people will be getting big bonuses.
These millions should go to Ty Hafan or similar once their shares are sold in the Premier league at twice the 2016 value. (£42m). [Post edited 15 Oct 2021 14:27]
|
I didn't say that the Trust would get all the money, I said the award would likely to be the same value per share as the sellouts |  |
| Prediction league winner 2016-2017 aka llanedeyrnjack |
|  |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:20 - Oct 15 with 915 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:09 - Oct 15 by Algorfajack |
I didn't say that the Trust would get all the money, I said the award would likely to be the same value per share as the sellouts |
I read what you said and accept your words as being accurate. I expanded on the subject to explain they would not get that money in their bank account for clarity. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:55 - Oct 15 with 892 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:20 - Oct 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I read what you said and accept your words as being accurate. I expanded on the subject to explain they would not get that money in their bank account for clarity. |
But the amount they will receive after deductions would likely vastly exceed anything they'll realistically receive from any other route any time soon.
And a gigantic profit on their initial outlay.
In the words of Resloven: "no mark up of that magnitude can ever be considered a bad deal". |  |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:56 - Oct 15 with 892 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:28 - Oct 15 by Chief |
Yes, Resloven has banged on about them investing in other ventures for years using it as a very misinformed stick to beat them with. Property under certain circumstances was the only realistic option. Although that's not viable with the resources the trust has had until now. |
The standard rules are written in English legalese but from what I can see they can invest in a range of investment forms as defined by what they refer to as 'the Act'. 2014.
A lawyer could advise on this. It is the most important issue relating to the decision to go to court. If they cannot invest the money outside the club there is no point cashing in. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 21:17 - Oct 15 with 884 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:56 - Oct 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The standard rules are written in English legalese but from what I can see they can invest in a range of investment forms as defined by what they refer to as 'the Act'. 2014.
A lawyer could advise on this. It is the most important issue relating to the decision to go to court. If they cannot invest the money outside the club there is no point cashing in. |
We've been through this previously. Don't know why you're pretending to act like you think there's more too this. You know there isn't. It was confined to property or something like investing in entities that own shares in the club.
It has very little bearing on the decision. And as someone who isn't a member, didn't vote and is against legal action, how you can state it's the most important issue is beyond me. There's millions of pounds of point in cashing in. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 07:53 - Oct 26 with 747 views | Chief |
"The best people to find a buyer is the US people especially Mr Kaplan. His company holds huge assets in many companies running into hundreds of billions. A good man to stay on friendly terms with I suggest. He even took time to mix with the good people of Swansea in 2016.
Hopefully the new board will take a new non confrontational approach and start networking. The signs are promising."
Are these friends of Kaplan (who've seen no reason to bid for the trust's shares up until this point despite the fact it would be doing Kaplan a favour) going to pay the 2016 Premier League share price then? Why would they do that?
So the paperwork for the court case has been issued&to date there's been no attempt from the American side to settle or compromise. But the signs are promising!? | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:31 - Oct 26 with 655 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 07:53 - Oct 26 by Chief |
"The best people to find a buyer is the US people especially Mr Kaplan. His company holds huge assets in many companies running into hundreds of billions. A good man to stay on friendly terms with I suggest. He even took time to mix with the good people of Swansea in 2016.
Hopefully the new board will take a new non confrontational approach and start networking. The signs are promising."
Are these friends of Kaplan (who've seen no reason to bid for the trust's shares up until this point despite the fact it would be doing Kaplan a favour) going to pay the 2016 Premier League share price then? Why would they do that?
So the paperwork for the court case has been issued&to date there's been no attempt from the American side to settle or compromise. But the signs are promising!? |
I admire your optimism. There will be no compromise in my opinion. The minority group are prepared to sue the only people putting money into the club to keep it functioning and fulfilling its commitments. They cannot be relied upon and can pack their bags and leave if that is their wish.
The excess of cost of the shares will be covered by the returned loans i suspect. A new long term loan on worse term probably will be taken on by somebody else. If I was them the interest will be covered by increased season ticket prices and possible cost savings from redundancies. More 'hard medicine' for the club. [Post edited 26 Oct 2021 18:34]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:12 - Oct 26 with 643 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:31 - Oct 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I admire your optimism. There will be no compromise in my opinion. The minority group are prepared to sue the only people putting money into the club to keep it functioning and fulfilling its commitments. They cannot be relied upon and can pack their bags and leave if that is their wish.
The excess of cost of the shares will be covered by the returned loans i suspect. A new long term loan on worse term probably will be taken on by somebody else. If I was them the interest will be covered by increased season ticket prices and possible cost savings from redundancies. More 'hard medicine' for the club. [Post edited 26 Oct 2021 18:34]
|
Well if there will be no compromise, the court case will take place. Which makes a mockery of your previous words pointing to some sort of agreement. If they can leave if they wish why is there a court case about to take place? You're not making a lot of sense here.
And then a nice spoonful of scare tactics. Haha how predictable.
Well why would they do that Resloven? I thought the trust's shares were a lovely proposition for any number of adventurous American mates of Kaplan? So to own the extra shares is a good thing for them is it not? The futures bright I was told? Or was the person that said that talking nonsense? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| If not when, when not if. ? on 21:33 - Oct 26 with 614 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:12 - Oct 26 by Chief |
Well if there will be no compromise, the court case will take place. Which makes a mockery of your previous words pointing to some sort of agreement. If they can leave if they wish why is there a court case about to take place? You're not making a lot of sense here.
And then a nice spoonful of scare tactics. Haha how predictable.
Well why would they do that Resloven? I thought the trust's shares were a lovely proposition for any number of adventurous American mates of Kaplan? So to own the extra shares is a good thing for them is it not? The futures bright I was told? Or was the person that said that talking nonsense? |
I hope there will be an agreement based on cooperation and teamwork. This will see the SCST retain their 21% holding and drop the court case. The new leader used 'IF' they go to court which suggests and element of doubt. The time for compromise was the mediation phase.
The SCST as far as I can see they have no investment plans for the money and no real use for it at present. They need not be in a rush and can afford to wait for the club to return to the Premier league or for Championship valuations to increase. The rewards for a return to the Premier leagues are massive perhaps up to double the 2016 price. The club only needs to have a valuation of £65m for 21% to be worth the cash value after a successful court case. If the club is run properly inflation will cover this. Derby County was quoted at £60m last season.
If they are determined to share the sale of their holding with 3rd parties there is nothing outsiders can do about that. It is for the members. The member must know that transferring big money from the owners to London based third parties is of no benefit to the club or Swansea at all. It is just the status quo and a repeat of the historical lot of South Wales over the last two centuries. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:05 - Oct 26 with 610 views | BillyChong |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:31 - Oct 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I admire your optimism. There will be no compromise in my opinion. The minority group are prepared to sue the only people putting money into the club to keep it functioning and fulfilling its commitments. They cannot be relied upon and can pack their bags and leave if that is their wish.
The excess of cost of the shares will be covered by the returned loans i suspect. A new long term loan on worse term probably will be taken on by somebody else. If I was them the interest will be covered by increased season ticket prices and possible cost savings from redundancies. More 'hard medicine' for the club. [Post edited 26 Oct 2021 18:34]
|
“The minority group are prepared to sue the only people putting money into the club to keep it functioning” - totally incorrect. There’s a link earlier in the thread in which the trust state the action is against the sellouts and only the sellouts. |  | | |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:07 - Oct 26 with 609 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 21:33 - Oct 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I hope there will be an agreement based on cooperation and teamwork. This will see the SCST retain their 21% holding and drop the court case. The new leader used 'IF' they go to court which suggests and element of doubt. The time for compromise was the mediation phase.
The SCST as far as I can see they have no investment plans for the money and no real use for it at present. They need not be in a rush and can afford to wait for the club to return to the Premier league or for Championship valuations to increase. The rewards for a return to the Premier leagues are massive perhaps up to double the 2016 price. The club only needs to have a valuation of £65m for 21% to be worth the cash value after a successful court case. If the club is run properly inflation will cover this. Derby County was quoted at £60m last season.
If they are determined to share the sale of their holding with 3rd parties there is nothing outsiders can do about that. It is for the members. The member must know that transferring big money from the owners to London based third parties is of no benefit to the club or Swansea at all. It is just the status quo and a repeat of the historical lot of South Wales over the last two centuries. |
Read the latest statement again - he also used the word 'when'. So keep deluding yourself if you it gives you some sort of comfort. No agreement is forthcoming&the parties being summoned to court declined to attend mediation.
Well they've waited 5 years (partially for the explicit good of the club) so there's no real rush. But it needs to be done now or a judge will I assume not look on it favourably. You assume returning to the premier league is a certainty. The chances of that happening lessen season on season. And yet again, you are ignoring the very real fact that there are no buyers for the shares now, no bidders. There aren't going to be after inflation.
If they have to pay fees, the figure even by your deliberately overly pessimistic will still be more than what their shares are worth currently and realistically what they will be for some time.
Don't you ever just get bored of posting the same tired nonsense all the time? May as well just be copy and paste. You have totally ignored and refused to address and acknowledge the points I made in the last post in favour of another generic post that you could have posted at any point within the last 4 years. It's bizarre and shows you up to be pretty clueless. You obviously cannot stand up to scrutiny. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:08 - Oct 26 with 607 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:05 - Oct 26 by BillyChong |
“The minority group are prepared to sue the only people putting money into the club to keep it functioning” - totally incorrect. There’s a link earlier in the thread in which the trust state the action is against the sellouts and only the sellouts. |
Are you sure?
I was under the impression it was against buyers and sellers? | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:55 - Oct 26 with 593 views | max936 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:07 - Oct 26 by Chief |
Read the latest statement again - he also used the word 'when'. So keep deluding yourself if you it gives you some sort of comfort. No agreement is forthcoming&the parties being summoned to court declined to attend mediation.
Well they've waited 5 years (partially for the explicit good of the club) so there's no real rush. But it needs to be done now or a judge will I assume not look on it favourably. You assume returning to the premier league is a certainty. The chances of that happening lessen season on season. And yet again, you are ignoring the very real fact that there are no buyers for the shares now, no bidders. There aren't going to be after inflation.
If they have to pay fees, the figure even by your deliberately overly pessimistic will still be more than what their shares are worth currently and realistically what they will be for some time.
Don't you ever just get bored of posting the same tired nonsense all the time? May as well just be copy and paste. You have totally ignored and refused to address and acknowledge the points I made in the last post in favour of another generic post that you could have posted at any point within the last 4 years. It's bizarre and shows you up to be pretty clueless. You obviously cannot stand up to scrutiny. |
You got some patience, you, Aye. |  |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 23:21 - Oct 26 with 581 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:05 - Oct 26 by BillyChong |
“The minority group are prepared to sue the only people putting money into the club to keep it functioning” - totally incorrect. There’s a link earlier in the thread in which the trust state the action is against the sellouts and only the sellouts. |
These are the words of the Trust leader.
He added: "If and when action is taken, it will not be against the football club, it will be against the sellers and the buyers of shares involved in the 2016 sale of the club."
Its laughable to claim a SCST bail out and £20m+ win in court will not adversely affect the club. In my opinion the costs will come back to the club and its fans. Handing over millions to London 3rd parties will be paid for by Swansea people and fans one way or another. At least £5m more like £7m the there is the issue of tax for Boris and his chums to waste.
[Post edited 26 Oct 2021 23:26]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 23:54 - Oct 26 with 569 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 23:21 - Oct 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
These are the words of the Trust leader.
He added: "If and when action is taken, it will not be against the football club, it will be against the sellers and the buyers of shares involved in the 2016 sale of the club."
Its laughable to claim a SCST bail out and £20m+ win in court will not adversely affect the club. In my opinion the costs will come back to the club and its fans. Handing over millions to London 3rd parties will be paid for by Swansea people and fans one way or another. At least £5m more like £7m the there is the issue of tax for Boris and his chums to waste.
[Post edited 26 Oct 2021 23:26]
|
Yes note the word "when'.
So the costs will come back to the club? They're going to steal the club's cash now are they? And therefore weaken and devalue the asset they just acquired more shares in to make them even bigger shareholder!? Somewhat counterproductive.
So the costs will come back to the fans? How long will it take them to recoup millions by raising season tickets by £20/30 quid then? Years and years and years. To the point that it would be counter productive to do so.
So try again scaremonger.....
And those figures are complete guesswork that can't be trusted seeing as such an unbalanced poster is saying it. [Post edited 26 Oct 2021 23:56]
| |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 13:25 - Oct 27 with 514 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 23:54 - Oct 26 by Chief |
Yes note the word "when'.
So the costs will come back to the club? They're going to steal the club's cash now are they? And therefore weaken and devalue the asset they just acquired more shares in to make them even bigger shareholder!? Somewhat counterproductive.
So the costs will come back to the fans? How long will it take them to recoup millions by raising season tickets by £20/30 quid then? Years and years and years. To the point that it would be counter productive to do so.
So try again scaremonger.....
And those figures are complete guesswork that can't be trusted seeing as such an unbalanced poster is saying it. [Post edited 26 Oct 2021 23:56]
|
The US owners have loaned perhaps £10m to the club with a view to converting it to new shares. When they are hit with a £21 m bill they will recoup the loan and buy the SCST shares with that money. Its not theft. They are not thieves. It is their own money.
The SCST have a current valuation of about £9m if you value the club at £45m. The CLN with interest is £12m assuming it is £10m. The US people will buy the shares for £9m and the club will pay for the rest by forgoing the investment (the fans said would never happen).
Consider this hypothetical scenario.
Naturally the owners will be less than pleased with the fans for paying a few million of their money to London 3rd parties for no good reason. Mr Winter will take out a new commercial short term loan to give him time to sell a player or two. (Piroe is looking handy). Martin will be browned off but there you go.
The new loan of £12m will be at greater than the 5% CLN perhaps 7% or 8% perhaps. The interest rate will be £960,000 or so. The owners will put £65 on the season ticket prices to cover this loan. (Just a little reminder to the fans that with ownership comes responsibility). The fans will moan but the US owners will attribute it to legal costs.
It should be common sense even to the dimmest of fans suing people who are keeping the club afloat with loans investments and sponsorship is foolish and will not help the club.
This will not be lost on the court who will be informed the SCST have only ever invested £200k in the club and have no financial acumen from their record. They have lived the good life but want out now investment is needed. They pretty much admitted this in a recent statement.
Sounds as even Billy Chong is beginning to smell the coffee now the day of reckoning is closing in.
Legal action only makes sense if Swansea are spiralling down the league in chaos. This was widely predicted but was never realistic. Winter has stated the club is in a good relative position with all parties working in harmony and US owners keen to invest.
The chances of the club returning to the PL are pretty good over the next 10 years. The value of the club in the championship will increase to guarantee no loss for the SCST compared to a legal action win with 35% costs. They do not need US permission to sell their shares. obviously to sell their shares they would be better off leaving it to the US people and tagging on. This requires good relation and networking skills.
Naturally if the SCST is able to invest of global markets they might be able to grow quicker with good advice.
This is all hypothetical. I am an outsider and do not know any of the individuals involved. I accept I will be accused of all sorts for presenting this unpalatable truths. Members simply have not thought things through. [Post edited 27 Oct 2021 13:26]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:52 - Oct 27 with 499 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 13:25 - Oct 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The US owners have loaned perhaps £10m to the club with a view to converting it to new shares. When they are hit with a £21 m bill they will recoup the loan and buy the SCST shares with that money. Its not theft. They are not thieves. It is their own money.
The SCST have a current valuation of about £9m if you value the club at £45m. The CLN with interest is £12m assuming it is £10m. The US people will buy the shares for £9m and the club will pay for the rest by forgoing the investment (the fans said would never happen).
Consider this hypothetical scenario.
Naturally the owners will be less than pleased with the fans for paying a few million of their money to London 3rd parties for no good reason. Mr Winter will take out a new commercial short term loan to give him time to sell a player or two. (Piroe is looking handy). Martin will be browned off but there you go.
The new loan of £12m will be at greater than the 5% CLN perhaps 7% or 8% perhaps. The interest rate will be £960,000 or so. The owners will put £65 on the season ticket prices to cover this loan. (Just a little reminder to the fans that with ownership comes responsibility). The fans will moan but the US owners will attribute it to legal costs.
It should be common sense even to the dimmest of fans suing people who are keeping the club afloat with loans investments and sponsorship is foolish and will not help the club.
This will not be lost on the court who will be informed the SCST have only ever invested £200k in the club and have no financial acumen from their record. They have lived the good life but want out now investment is needed. They pretty much admitted this in a recent statement.
Sounds as even Billy Chong is beginning to smell the coffee now the day of reckoning is closing in.
Legal action only makes sense if Swansea are spiralling down the league in chaos. This was widely predicted but was never realistic. Winter has stated the club is in a good relative position with all parties working in harmony and US owners keen to invest.
The chances of the club returning to the PL are pretty good over the next 10 years. The value of the club in the championship will increase to guarantee no loss for the SCST compared to a legal action win with 35% costs. They do not need US permission to sell their shares. obviously to sell their shares they would be better off leaving it to the US people and tagging on. This requires good relation and networking skills.
Naturally if the SCST is able to invest of global markets they might be able to grow quicker with good advice.
This is all hypothetical. I am an outsider and do not know any of the individuals involved. I accept I will be accused of all sorts for presenting this unpalatable truths. Members simply have not thought things through. [Post edited 27 Oct 2021 13:26]
|
5million won't cover what they'll likely have to pay, so yes that 5mill (not yet converted) currently their money. So you're saying they'll steal the rest from the club? 16million ish? I note how certain you of these recouping plans. Not suspicious at all.
Struggling to see the relevance here.... Why will the American buy the shares for 9million? They are surely going to be sold at the same rate as what the other shareholders received. Roughly 1mill per percentage. Fans said what would never happen?
It is of no concern to the Americans what the trust spend their money on or who they choose to represent them and frankly if successful it's none of their business so struggling to see where you're going with this. All they'll care is what they'll have to pay. But I'll humour you nonetheless....
So the owner's are going to loan the club more money (lumbering us with more debt), but then steal transfer fees?
And you think fans are then going to pay a premium on season tickets to see a weakened team with owners who are basically openly stealing club money. How can they attribute it to legal costs? Legal costs for a case taken against them as individuals, not the club.
If they asset strip (the yank sycophants told us this wouldn't happen), we'll be in League 1 sharpish. How are they going to recoup their 80 odd million then? Plus these new loans. Not making much sense this is it? You can never give a answer to this.
What evidence is there that these loans are keeping the club afloat!? Didn't Winter say the club is debt free recently? Doesn't really tally up does it.
The court will not for one second consider who's invested what and when in the past. What ridiculously niave (desperate) comment to make. The court isn't there to review the performance of shareholders. It's to sit to rule on the circumstances of the sale and that alone. Want out now that investment is needed? Was investment needed 4 years ago when the trust began taking steps then? I wasn't aware of that. Or are you lying again?
Surely I should make sense to the Americans to want additional shares? Isn't the future bright? What an opportunity?....
Disagree, the chances of a premier League return get slimmer every season....
35% costs.... Do you have source for that figure? Or are you making it up?
And how do you suggest they sell their shares? As you ignore they've been in the process of court action for years. Surely now would be the time for prospective bidders to swoop. They might even get a discount to save hassle and costs...... But as we know there have been none... You can never give an answer to this.
It appears that professional investors don't put as much faith in inflation or derby or Burnley as you.
Unpalatable truths? Thought you didn't know if any of it is going to come true and you don't know anything. So how are there truths now involved!? Suspicious..... | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:26 - Oct 27 with 467 views | onehunglow |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:52 - Oct 27 by Chief |
5million won't cover what they'll likely have to pay, so yes that 5mill (not yet converted) currently their money. So you're saying they'll steal the rest from the club? 16million ish? I note how certain you of these recouping plans. Not suspicious at all.
Struggling to see the relevance here.... Why will the American buy the shares for 9million? They are surely going to be sold at the same rate as what the other shareholders received. Roughly 1mill per percentage. Fans said what would never happen?
It is of no concern to the Americans what the trust spend their money on or who they choose to represent them and frankly if successful it's none of their business so struggling to see where you're going with this. All they'll care is what they'll have to pay. But I'll humour you nonetheless....
So the owner's are going to loan the club more money (lumbering us with more debt), but then steal transfer fees?
And you think fans are then going to pay a premium on season tickets to see a weakened team with owners who are basically openly stealing club money. How can they attribute it to legal costs? Legal costs for a case taken against them as individuals, not the club.
If they asset strip (the yank sycophants told us this wouldn't happen), we'll be in League 1 sharpish. How are they going to recoup their 80 odd million then? Plus these new loans. Not making much sense this is it? You can never give a answer to this.
What evidence is there that these loans are keeping the club afloat!? Didn't Winter say the club is debt free recently? Doesn't really tally up does it.
The court will not for one second consider who's invested what and when in the past. What ridiculously niave (desperate) comment to make. The court isn't there to review the performance of shareholders. It's to sit to rule on the circumstances of the sale and that alone. Want out now that investment is needed? Was investment needed 4 years ago when the trust began taking steps then? I wasn't aware of that. Or are you lying again?
Surely I should make sense to the Americans to want additional shares? Isn't the future bright? What an opportunity?....
Disagree, the chances of a premier League return get slimmer every season....
35% costs.... Do you have source for that figure? Or are you making it up?
And how do you suggest they sell their shares? As you ignore they've been in the process of court action for years. Surely now would be the time for prospective bidders to swoop. They might even get a discount to save hassle and costs...... But as we know there have been none... You can never give an answer to this.
It appears that professional investors don't put as much faith in inflation or derby or Burnley as you.
Unpalatable truths? Thought you didn't know if any of it is going to come true and you don't know anything. So how are there truths now involved!? Suspicious..... |
I dont consider myself but this topic puzzles and depresses me profoundly.
Let's face it, we ve been bust before and it hurt like hell.
We wouldn't even have a club to bitch over | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:44 - Oct 27 with 472 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:52 - Oct 27 by Chief |
5million won't cover what they'll likely have to pay, so yes that 5mill (not yet converted) currently their money. So you're saying they'll steal the rest from the club? 16million ish? I note how certain you of these recouping plans. Not suspicious at all.
Struggling to see the relevance here.... Why will the American buy the shares for 9million? They are surely going to be sold at the same rate as what the other shareholders received. Roughly 1mill per percentage. Fans said what would never happen?
It is of no concern to the Americans what the trust spend their money on or who they choose to represent them and frankly if successful it's none of their business so struggling to see where you're going with this. All they'll care is what they'll have to pay. But I'll humour you nonetheless....
So the owner's are going to loan the club more money (lumbering us with more debt), but then steal transfer fees?
And you think fans are then going to pay a premium on season tickets to see a weakened team with owners who are basically openly stealing club money. How can they attribute it to legal costs? Legal costs for a case taken against them as individuals, not the club.
If they asset strip (the yank sycophants told us this wouldn't happen), we'll be in League 1 sharpish. How are they going to recoup their 80 odd million then? Plus these new loans. Not making much sense this is it? You can never give a answer to this.
What evidence is there that these loans are keeping the club afloat!? Didn't Winter say the club is debt free recently? Doesn't really tally up does it.
The court will not for one second consider who's invested what and when in the past. What ridiculously niave (desperate) comment to make. The court isn't there to review the performance of shareholders. It's to sit to rule on the circumstances of the sale and that alone. Want out now that investment is needed? Was investment needed 4 years ago when the trust began taking steps then? I wasn't aware of that. Or are you lying again?
Surely I should make sense to the Americans to want additional shares? Isn't the future bright? What an opportunity?....
Disagree, the chances of a premier League return get slimmer every season....
35% costs.... Do you have source for that figure? Or are you making it up?
And how do you suggest they sell their shares? As you ignore they've been in the process of court action for years. Surely now would be the time for prospective bidders to swoop. They might even get a discount to save hassle and costs...... But as we know there have been none... You can never give an answer to this.
It appears that professional investors don't put as much faith in inflation or derby or Burnley as you.
Unpalatable truths? Thought you didn't know if any of it is going to come true and you don't know anything. So how are there truths now involved!? Suspicious..... |
You are not so strong on finance it is clear.
If they have to buy the SCST s shares for £21m they will do it. The club owes them £12m from the Loan Note if they do not convert (with interest) . The figure of £5m was reportedly matched. Winter says there are no debts because he sees the likely £10m as an 'investment' not a 'loan'. The court case becomes a game changer and the 'investment' then is likely to become a club debt.
£10m -£12m of the money will be returned by the club to them immediately. The chairman will need to find this replacement money somewhere and make plans . It will be the club's problem not the owners problem.
He will firstly do this with with a short term loan then then where possible pay it off by selling Piroe, Ntcham Downes etc. The remaining £9m is simply the current market value of the SCST's shares so no loss to the US people.
Members of the SCST surely realise giving the owners a black eye is not a good eye idea as they are providing the cash to keep the club running. A new phase of 'tough medicine' will be upon us.
The added interest for the new loan could be paid for by a fan supplement. It is the fans who would have created this new 'club debt'. The club will have to apply this, not the owners as it is the club with the debt once the CLN is withdrawn.
The current loan is 5%. The new loan will be higher perhaps. The club can get this by putting £60-£70 on season tickets. What is the problem with that?. The money is going to pay off the SCST and their funders at the end of the day.
What they will do with it is anyone's guess. Put in a current account at 0.15% is the best they can do at the moment. £14m at 3% inflation will see a real inflation adjusted paper loss of £400,000 per year.
If they leave their £9m in club shares football inflation might be 5% p.a. or £450,000 gain. A net £50k gain per year. Big Arabian money is coming into the PL as we speak and they will be spending silly money. This will trickle down and contribute to better trading particularly in transfer fees. (especially 22 year old centre forwards in hot form)
I am doing my best to explain to you but it is seemingly over your head. You equate recovering a loan with 'theft'. The club has 'no debts' because it is assumed the US people will not recover their loan note and simply issue new shares. The fans have the second lowest season tickets in the Championship. With an extra £10m debt to be paid off with a higher interest rate it is logical to assume this will have to change.
Just my opinion. If fans believe in the SCST above the interests of the club, then they need not worry about the club's fortunes. In that case the club needs to ditch them sooner rather than later.
I believe some members want to chase the Yankees out of town and see the SCST run the club and a fan owner competitor to the mighty Exeter city. This is a legitimate all be it low expectation vision. Then you will see some real asset stripping. Grimes, Watkins and Ampadu were sold for less than £5m by fan owned Exeter City.
The US people are in it for the long terms and know how to negotiate these hurdles. They have been here 5 years already. The club is working harmoniously from Owners, Chairman DoF, recruitment coaching and players. I have never seen this before. Cooper did not fit in with this culture. (great coach that he is). [Post edited 27 Oct 2021 16:58]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 17:50 - Oct 27 with 458 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:44 - Oct 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are not so strong on finance it is clear.
If they have to buy the SCST s shares for £21m they will do it. The club owes them £12m from the Loan Note if they do not convert (with interest) . The figure of £5m was reportedly matched. Winter says there are no debts because he sees the likely £10m as an 'investment' not a 'loan'. The court case becomes a game changer and the 'investment' then is likely to become a club debt.
£10m -£12m of the money will be returned by the club to them immediately. The chairman will need to find this replacement money somewhere and make plans . It will be the club's problem not the owners problem.
He will firstly do this with with a short term loan then then where possible pay it off by selling Piroe, Ntcham Downes etc. The remaining £9m is simply the current market value of the SCST's shares so no loss to the US people.
Members of the SCST surely realise giving the owners a black eye is not a good eye idea as they are providing the cash to keep the club running. A new phase of 'tough medicine' will be upon us.
The added interest for the new loan could be paid for by a fan supplement. It is the fans who would have created this new 'club debt'. The club will have to apply this, not the owners as it is the club with the debt once the CLN is withdrawn.
The current loan is 5%. The new loan will be higher perhaps. The club can get this by putting £60-£70 on season tickets. What is the problem with that?. The money is going to pay off the SCST and their funders at the end of the day.
What they will do with it is anyone's guess. Put in a current account at 0.15% is the best they can do at the moment. £14m at 3% inflation will see a real inflation adjusted paper loss of £400,000 per year.
If they leave their £9m in club shares football inflation might be 5% p.a. or £450,000 gain. A net £50k gain per year. Big Arabian money is coming into the PL as we speak and they will be spending silly money. This will trickle down and contribute to better trading particularly in transfer fees. (especially 22 year old centre forwards in hot form)
I am doing my best to explain to you but it is seemingly over your head. You equate recovering a loan with 'theft'. The club has 'no debts' because it is assumed the US people will not recover their loan note and simply issue new shares. The fans have the second lowest season tickets in the Championship. With an extra £10m debt to be paid off with a higher interest rate it is logical to assume this will have to change.
Just my opinion. If fans believe in the SCST above the interests of the club, then they need not worry about the club's fortunes. In that case the club needs to ditch them sooner rather than later.
I believe some members want to chase the Yankees out of town and see the SCST run the club and a fan owner competitor to the mighty Exeter city. This is a legitimate all be it low expectation vision. Then you will see some real asset stripping. Grimes, Watkins and Ampadu were sold for less than £5m by fan owned Exeter City.
The US people are in it for the long terms and know how to negotiate these hurdles. They have been here 5 years already. The club is working harmoniously from Owners, Chairman DoF, recruitment coaching and players. I have never seen this before. Cooper did not fit in with this culture. (great coach that he is). [Post edited 27 Oct 2021 16:58]
|
No it's pretty obvious you not enjoy waffling about finances but your accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. And it's glaringly obvious you completely lack context.
No, the club owes the shareholding owners 5mill. The total was the 10/12mill figure. But as of yet it is a fact that it is s debt garnering interest. So either Winter is a liar, deliberately misleading the fanbase or you are painting too heroic a picture of what the club needed to stay 'afloat'. You tell me which it is. Note zero interest loans were available for club from the EFL. We seemingly didn't take up that.....
How can it be returned immediately? I thought that money was Keeping the club afloat? Surely by that logic removing it means bankruptcy... How much would their shares be worth then? Do you know if that loan can be removed immediately or are you making that up? Or inside knowledge?
So to be clear, the owners are going to
- take their loan back.
- then loan the club money again.
- then sell all the stars.
Haha this gets more and more bizarre.
According to you though the owners can afford to take their loan back and the club presumably will still function? So again, either they can't / won't do that or the value of their shares reaches zero with them well down on their initial investment plus this weird new loan you speak of.
You're just doing your cut and paste stunt yet again. Ignoring my post and repeating yourself. This season ticket price hike, again I'll ask do you honestly think they are going to get money takers if they owners are openly stealing the club's money, deliberately weakening the team and then raising ticket prices. And you think this initiative will gather enough funds (which will be stolen) to cover their outlay? Oh dear.
As above. How many of our fans are going to pay an extra £60/£70 with the club at the bottom of the championship (maybe league 1) with a deliberately weakened squad with owners openly misappropriating the club's funds? Come on this is insane. We'd barely get 5k.
Yes and that's more a lot more than they have now (any mark up of that magnitude cannot be regarded as a bad deal). Remember that?
We aren't in the premier league. We don't have parachute payments. We're fighting the tide now. Our best chance has gone. That's clear for anyone to see. The Arabian thing is irrelevant. No prospective owner is going to pay what trust stand to receive.
Yes because that's exactly what it will be - theft. If they do what you are saying they will, they will stealing club funds to claw back funds which they are liable to pay for their own personal indiscretions so you and or them can dress it up, delude yourselves as to it being a loan. The aim is clear and completely on my level - to steal funds from Swansea City football club.
As above you can't assume that there's no debt. Why hasn't it been converted? A year on?
Not sure what to make of that bizarre rant on Exeter. Or what evidence you have for it. None probably as usual.
Well yea they have to be in it for the long term if they want some return. Since they bought it the club has gradually got weaker & the value reduced.
So this time let's simply it for you no cut and pasting of Burnley anecdotes or anything else now - answer this:
If the Americans sell the club's stars, is it likely that the team will struggle? | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 13:05 - Oct 28 with 416 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 17:50 - Oct 27 by Chief |
No it's pretty obvious you not enjoy waffling about finances but your accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. And it's glaringly obvious you completely lack context.
No, the club owes the shareholding owners 5mill. The total was the 10/12mill figure. But as of yet it is a fact that it is s debt garnering interest. So either Winter is a liar, deliberately misleading the fanbase or you are painting too heroic a picture of what the club needed to stay 'afloat'. You tell me which it is. Note zero interest loans were available for club from the EFL. We seemingly didn't take up that.....
How can it be returned immediately? I thought that money was Keeping the club afloat? Surely by that logic removing it means bankruptcy... How much would their shares be worth then? Do you know if that loan can be removed immediately or are you making that up? Or inside knowledge?
So to be clear, the owners are going to
- take their loan back.
- then loan the club money again.
- then sell all the stars.
Haha this gets more and more bizarre.
According to you though the owners can afford to take their loan back and the club presumably will still function? So again, either they can't / won't do that or the value of their shares reaches zero with them well down on their initial investment plus this weird new loan you speak of.
You're just doing your cut and paste stunt yet again. Ignoring my post and repeating yourself. This season ticket price hike, again I'll ask do you honestly think they are going to get money takers if they owners are openly stealing the club's money, deliberately weakening the team and then raising ticket prices. And you think this initiative will gather enough funds (which will be stolen) to cover their outlay? Oh dear.
As above. How many of our fans are going to pay an extra £60/£70 with the club at the bottom of the championship (maybe league 1) with a deliberately weakened squad with owners openly misappropriating the club's funds? Come on this is insane. We'd barely get 5k.
Yes and that's more a lot more than they have now (any mark up of that magnitude cannot be regarded as a bad deal). Remember that?
We aren't in the premier league. We don't have parachute payments. We're fighting the tide now. Our best chance has gone. That's clear for anyone to see. The Arabian thing is irrelevant. No prospective owner is going to pay what trust stand to receive.
Yes because that's exactly what it will be - theft. If they do what you are saying they will, they will stealing club funds to claw back funds which they are liable to pay for their own personal indiscretions so you and or them can dress it up, delude yourselves as to it being a loan. The aim is clear and completely on my level - to steal funds from Swansea City football club.
As above you can't assume that there's no debt. Why hasn't it been converted? A year on?
Not sure what to make of that bizarre rant on Exeter. Or what evidence you have for it. None probably as usual.
Well yea they have to be in it for the long term if they want some return. Since they bought it the club has gradually got weaker & the value reduced.
So this time let's simply it for you no cut and pasting of Burnley anecdotes or anything else now - answer this:
If the Americans sell the club's stars, is it likely that the team will struggle? |
At present the club has no debt obligations. The £10m in the club coffers will as thing stand not have to be repaid. It will be used to buy new shares and the money available for the club. The ultimate notional loan cost is £12m with interest. It is in the clubs interest clearly to convert this loan into shares.
If he US owners are hit with a £21m bill. Things will change. Where will they get the money from?. I believe the loan in this case will not be converted. Silverstein wants a piece of the club and can pay perhaps the £9m market value of the club for his 21% holding. This leaves £12m to be found for Levien and Kaplan. Easy recover the money they have already loaned. £10m + interest. Half of this was from Silverstein of course so there is some arrangements there to be sorted.
The current notional loan incurs 5% interest. Punters tell me that is not a great deal. Therefore Winter can get a lower deal in the market place if that is the case. If he cannot and has to pay more than 5% he can recover this by bringing the season ticket prices into line with the champiionship average at least to offset interest payments.
The Trusts shares will be paid for by Silverstein's new money and debt placed onto the club until Piroe Ntcham and Downes are sold.
I hope the case does not go ahead or the SCST lose in Court. The is no indication they are financially switched on so will be of little use to the club in the future as inflation eats into their assets.
Two scenarios
No case = No debt
SCST win in court = £12m debt put onto the club
Worse than that about £4m of the club debt is money that notionally heads to the London agencies supporting the SCST case.
This is hypothetical of course but clearly fans must realise suing the people that are loaning the club money and sponsoring the stadium is not a good place to be. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:45 - Oct 28 with 392 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 13:05 - Oct 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
At present the club has no debt obligations. The £10m in the club coffers will as thing stand not have to be repaid. It will be used to buy new shares and the money available for the club. The ultimate notional loan cost is £12m with interest. It is in the clubs interest clearly to convert this loan into shares.
If he US owners are hit with a £21m bill. Things will change. Where will they get the money from?. I believe the loan in this case will not be converted. Silverstein wants a piece of the club and can pay perhaps the £9m market value of the club for his 21% holding. This leaves £12m to be found for Levien and Kaplan. Easy recover the money they have already loaned. £10m + interest. Half of this was from Silverstein of course so there is some arrangements there to be sorted.
The current notional loan incurs 5% interest. Punters tell me that is not a great deal. Therefore Winter can get a lower deal in the market place if that is the case. If he cannot and has to pay more than 5% he can recover this by bringing the season ticket prices into line with the champiionship average at least to offset interest payments.
The Trusts shares will be paid for by Silverstein's new money and debt placed onto the club until Piroe Ntcham and Downes are sold.
I hope the case does not go ahead or the SCST lose in Court. The is no indication they are financially switched on so will be of little use to the club in the future as inflation eats into their assets.
Two scenarios
No case = No debt
SCST win in court = £12m debt put onto the club
Worse than that about £4m of the club debt is money that notionally heads to the London agencies supporting the SCST case.
This is hypothetical of course but clearly fans must realise suing the people that are loaning the club money and sponsoring the stadium is not a good place to be. |
As things stand that £10mill will have to be repaid. At present it's a loan, do by definition it will need to be repaid. So already one paragraph in and you're peddling falsehoods.
You've already said this several times and I've replied several times. This was meant to be your opportunity to get away from the cut and paste monotony and claw back some credibility by standing up to scrutiny. It seems you are shying away from it yet again.
As I say the league were offering interest free loans to clubs to get through covid.
So you're once again confirming that the Americans will steal the club's funds to pay their personal debts. With amazing and suspicious confidence.
Or a scenario you're ignoring altogether - the Americans as resourceful, optimistic business will take on the challenge of increasing their shareholding and act accordingly to appease their funders. And the best way to do that is to run the club to give it the best possible opportunity of reaching the premier league. Asset stripping is not the way to do that. Were they twp enough to realise when they bought / bid for the club that this wouldn't be a possibility? The club has been relegated and the share price dropped on their watch. They have to now deal with the consequences. There is absolutely so excusing them stealing from the football club to this and it's pretty disgusting that a 'fan' such as yourself would ever endorse such an action and describe with such glee.
So again I'll ask questions which you won't answer presumably because the answers are uncomfortable to your agenda:
- will the Americans selling the teams stars likely result in the team struggling?
And this one I'll throw in too which I think is too unpalatable for you to consider, you always ignore it, but it seems to be more realistic to me than your scenarios:
- the Americans have stated they were not aware of any shareholders agreement. We know it existed / exists, acknowledged as such by Jenkins/his lawyer. If the trust win in court and the Americans are ordered pay fees/damages/buy trust's shares at 2016 premier league prices, do you not think that the Americans have cause to then go after the sellouts? Would they not have a false pretences type case!? | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:26 - Oct 28 with 355 views | Dewi1jack |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 07:55 - Oct 15 by 34dfgdf54 |
Some people will never be happy while the Americans are here for the way the Trust was done over in the sale. I'd be aiming my frustrations out of Huw etc rather than the Americans, who on the whole have done a very good job on steadying what looked a quickly sinking ship after relegation. |
This.
Yes I pushed for the legal action originally and on the 2nd vote. Have had many a go at the people who drafted the original voting papers and explanations.
My beef is with shagger, beaky, van clog and especially Dimwit as he led the Trust and should have given the nod about the sale.
I seem to remember the Merrycans clearly stating that they were told by the sellers to exclude the Trust.
Can't blame them for not speaking to the Trust.
Club seems in pretty good financial shape, so it seems.
Certainly better than the likes of Derby at the mo
Or us under some of our previous incumbents from the 80's onwards |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:40 - Oct 28 with 349 views | KeithHaynes |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:26 - Oct 28 by Dewi1jack |
This.
Yes I pushed for the legal action originally and on the 2nd vote. Have had many a go at the people who drafted the original voting papers and explanations.
My beef is with shagger, beaky, van clog and especially Dimwit as he led the Trust and should have given the nod about the sale.
I seem to remember the Merrycans clearly stating that they were told by the sellers to exclude the Trust.
Can't blame them for not speaking to the Trust.
Club seems in pretty good financial shape, so it seems.
Certainly better than the likes of Derby at the mo
Or us under some of our previous incumbents from the 80's onwards |
The late 90’s too mate. |  |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:44 - Oct 28 with 340 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:45 - Oct 28 by Chief |
As things stand that £10mill will have to be repaid. At present it's a loan, do by definition it will need to be repaid. So already one paragraph in and you're peddling falsehoods.
You've already said this several times and I've replied several times. This was meant to be your opportunity to get away from the cut and paste monotony and claw back some credibility by standing up to scrutiny. It seems you are shying away from it yet again.
As I say the league were offering interest free loans to clubs to get through covid.
So you're once again confirming that the Americans will steal the club's funds to pay their personal debts. With amazing and suspicious confidence.
Or a scenario you're ignoring altogether - the Americans as resourceful, optimistic business will take on the challenge of increasing their shareholding and act accordingly to appease their funders. And the best way to do that is to run the club to give it the best possible opportunity of reaching the premier league. Asset stripping is not the way to do that. Were they twp enough to realise when they bought / bid for the club that this wouldn't be a possibility? The club has been relegated and the share price dropped on their watch. They have to now deal with the consequences. There is absolutely so excusing them stealing from the football club to this and it's pretty disgusting that a 'fan' such as yourself would ever endorse such an action and describe with such glee.
So again I'll ask questions which you won't answer presumably because the answers are uncomfortable to your agenda:
- will the Americans selling the teams stars likely result in the team struggling?
And this one I'll throw in too which I think is too unpalatable for you to consider, you always ignore it, but it seems to be more realistic to me than your scenarios:
- the Americans have stated they were not aware of any shareholders agreement. We know it existed / exists, acknowledged as such by Jenkins/his lawyer. If the trust win in court and the Americans are ordered pay fees/damages/buy trust's shares at 2016 premier league prices, do you not think that the Americans have cause to then go after the sellouts? Would they not have a false pretences type case!? |
You simply are not bright enough to understand my points. Taking back a loan as a potential investment money is not theft. The US owners will not steal anything because they are not thieves. They will be taking back their own money and reinstating "austerity".
According to Winter the loan does not need to be repaid as it a a pending investment. It will most probably need to be repaid in the event of a court ruling that declares they have to by the SCST shares at the 2016 value. These are big sums.
The EFL loans were meant for clubs who needed it. Winter would have taken them if it was in the best interests of the club. They may have taken these loans as far as I know.
The US people will endorse selling players at the right price as every owner of Swansea city have done to balance the books. As I have explained to you the legal action could lead o new debts which need to be paid off. At the same time promising players like Piroe and Downes will be scouted by PL club flush with new Arabian cash and players may be loath to sign new long term deals. Another way to cover more expensive loan interest payment is to bring season tickets in line with the Championship average.
I cannot comment on the SHA. This is a legal matter. I am purely focusing on whether a SCST win in court will be good for the club or bad for the club whatever the rights and wrongs of the case.
In my i opinion it is bad in the short term and the long term for the club and the SCST.
I only makes sense if the current owners are irresponsible and the club is spiralling to the lower leagues and administration. This is clearly not the case. They are proper football investors with good records on investment and business ethics. They managed the consequences of relegation and Covid with no debts and no outstanding PL legacy bills. Derby and Wigan were not so lucky. Sunderland Sheffield Wednesday and of course Portsmouth have not been managed so well.
The SCST do not appear able to manage large sums of money to avoid the affects of serious devaluation arising from inflation. Giving them large sums of the owners money is therefore pointless with regard to the clubs future unless they have a credible business investment plan. Accounts suggest they are getting 0.15% return. A full 2.85% less than inflation. The Santander bank are doing very nicely out of them. They should not be funding bankers insurers and legal firms.
The club set up is now sound. There is a strong recruitment team. Even after selling stars they can still turn out a competitive team. People said Swansea would sink without the one man band Ayew. It is not the case. The sale of players and increased ticket prices will simply be a new phase of "harsh medicine". The US owners promised a limited period and were true to their word. A SCST win in court will set back the club 2 or 3 seasons development in my opinion on the downside. The upside? There is no upside.
The SCST's net share price premium money and funder's bills (total around £12m) will be paid from Swansea city austerity measures including net positive player sales and increased ticket prices in my opinion as the convertible loan note is not converted and transferred to a commercial loan. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
