| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:30 - Oct 14 with 1001 views | KeithHaynes |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:48 - Oct 14 by Chief |
Well in this very statement Winter states the club is debt free.
That's factually not true is it? |
Debt free outside of the input from the board. |  |
|  |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:33 - Oct 14 with 990 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:30 - Oct 14 by KeithHaynes |
Debt free outside of the input from the board. |
Ah, but that's not what he said.
What he said is untrue. |  |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:39 - Oct 14 with 976 views | KeithHaynes |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:33 - Oct 14 by Chief |
Ah, but that's not what he said.
What he said is untrue. |
When we have an issue I’ll be first in the queue 👠| |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:55 - Oct 14 with 961 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:39 - Oct 14 by KeithHaynes |
When we have an issue I’ll be first in the queue 👠|
Good, in the meantime let's remain vigilant. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:57 - Oct 14 with 919 views | KeithHaynes |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:55 - Oct 14 by Chief |
Good, in the meantime let's remain vigilant. |
Personally, I can reference back to 1997 when vigilance was only an awareness for the few. Silver Shield then ninth floor, humiliated us. We took them on when there were thousands who didn’t see it. Then a few were put on the payroll to rip down Protest banners and amongst a very few I was happy to stand in front of them, and personally take them on. Radio, TV and in the news. Then we had Peter Day, Mike Lewis and the idiot from Australia. We still as a few stood firm and took them on. Then the courageous few, some of whom are considered scum today stood up for our club , then there were those who had given up. We didn’t. I personally turned down an opportunity to become a part of the new beginning because of my job and family in 2001.
Listen mate, I’ve still got the T-shirt, literally. And I’ve still got the credentials. Unfortunately those that would back me up aren’t even considered newsworthy. Even after ten plus years of resounding success today they are considered scum. I know a wrong un when I see them, I’ve seen years of it at Swansea City, and it may be the case the current lot are protecting their income, but at least they aren’t doing it criminally, and openly taking the piss like many before.
And for that we should be grateful. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 23:07 - Oct 14 with 901 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:57 - Oct 14 by KeithHaynes |
Personally, I can reference back to 1997 when vigilance was only an awareness for the few. Silver Shield then ninth floor, humiliated us. We took them on when there were thousands who didn’t see it. Then a few were put on the payroll to rip down Protest banners and amongst a very few I was happy to stand in front of them, and personally take them on. Radio, TV and in the news. Then we had Peter Day, Mike Lewis and the idiot from Australia. We still as a few stood firm and took them on. Then the courageous few, some of whom are considered scum today stood up for our club , then there were those who had given up. We didn’t. I personally turned down an opportunity to become a part of the new beginning because of my job and family in 2001.
Listen mate, I’ve still got the T-shirt, literally. And I’ve still got the credentials. Unfortunately those that would back me up aren’t even considered newsworthy. Even after ten plus years of resounding success today they are considered scum. I know a wrong un when I see them, I’ve seen years of it at Swansea City, and it may be the case the current lot are protecting their income, but at least they aren’t doing it criminally, and openly taking the piss like many before.
And for that we should be grateful. |
And I entirely appreciate all that and you should notice that I'm rarely actually critical of the owners (or lenders) or Winter unless it's actually obviously warranted.
However I just don't think it's right that disingenuous statements like the OPs or false statements should be left unscrutinized.
And surely questioining why the conversion hasn't occurred yet all this time on is a valid question? As is asking why more transparency surrounding it isn't forthcoming too. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 23:10 - Oct 14 with 891 views | KeithHaynes |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 23:07 - Oct 14 by Chief |
And I entirely appreciate all that and you should notice that I'm rarely actually critical of the owners (or lenders) or Winter unless it's actually obviously warranted.
However I just don't think it's right that disingenuous statements like the OPs or false statements should be left unscrutinized.
And surely questioining why the conversion hasn't occurred yet all this time on is a valid question? As is asking why more transparency surrounding it isn't forthcoming too. |
Ah now mate, the issue between you and the op are nothing to do with our conversation.
We could split hairs all night, but I’ve got a bloody 5k to do at 8am and it already hurts 😉 | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 23:26 - Oct 14 with 879 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 23:10 - Oct 14 by KeithHaynes |
Ah now mate, the issue between you and the op are nothing to do with our conversation.
We could split hairs all night, but I’ve got a bloody 5k to do at 8am and it already hurts 😉 |
I was referring to my involvement in this thread as a whole.
You're a man with more willpower than me. Enjoy rhedeg. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| If not when, when not if. ? on 07:55 - Oct 15 with 831 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:28 - Oct 14 by KeithHaynes |
It would be an interesting conversation if we could point to when either has said anything that’s construed as a falsehood. |
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. |  | | |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 08:04 - Oct 15 with 828 views | Dr_Winston |
| 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. |
It's quite sad but a bit telling that people like Perchy would welcome any two bit despot here if they promised to splash the cash, but trying to run the club sustainably makes you public enemy #1.
No doubt they've made a lot of mistakes. They've made so many rods for their own backs you'd begin to suspect a masochistic streak, but overall I'd rather have them than someone like Tan. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 08:19 - Oct 15 with 824 views | Chief |
| 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. |
And generally I think everyone and the trust are. Read that article and they are complimentary of Silverstein and his engagement.
However, the American owners have publically admitted on camera that they colluded with the sellers to exclude the trust in the sale. So if the trust took just the sellers to court (and not the Americans) I believe it would inevitably lead to questions from the judge and potentially undermine the trust's case. The trust are working on legal advice so they have to go down that route if this is what you're alluding to. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 08:21 - Oct 15 with 823 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 08:04 - Oct 15 by Dr_Winston |
It's quite sad but a bit telling that people like Perchy would welcome any two bit despot here if they promised to splash the cash, but trying to run the club sustainably makes you public enemy #1.
No doubt they've made a lot of mistakes. They've made so many rods for their own backs you'd begin to suspect a masochistic streak, but overall I'd rather have them than someone like Tan. |
I totally agree.
But the legal case no matter how it ends up is not about removing them from the club. In fact one of the probable outcomes is that they become an even larger shareholder than they already are! So in some ways this action is an admission of faith. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 08:21 - Oct 15 with 823 views | Thornburyswan |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 08:04 - Oct 15 by Dr_Winston |
It's quite sad but a bit telling that people like Perchy would welcome any two bit despot here if they promised to splash the cash, but trying to run the club sustainably makes you public enemy #1.
No doubt they've made a lot of mistakes. They've made so many rods for their own backs you'd begin to suspect a masochistic streak, but overall I'd rather have them than someone like Tan. |
Agree Dr, they were naive & slow to react in the first couple of years as owners but very difficult to fault the last 2/3 seasons with the possible exception of outgoing transfer fees obtained - that said you can only get what someone else will pay.
We could be in a lot worse position both in debt & owner terms. |  | | |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 12:16 - Oct 15 with 762 views | Algorfajack |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:29 - Oct 14 by Catullus |
From a debt perspective it was brilliant to see Winters words, that the club are debt free. That in itself gives us an advantage over several other clubs in this division. Maybe come January we actually will sign a few more decent players.
If (as Martin claimed) agents are contacting us because their clients really fancy coming here, we could bag a few bargains maybe? If the club they are at are in debt we might grab a few deals that are better than they would have been 2 years ago.
The court case, it does to me look more like an unwelcome distraction now. Even if the Trust win, if Siverstein and the current owners convert debt to equity, will it affect anythig the trust win? Unless the Trust get a cash settlement I don't think there is a win in this now. |
When it goes to court & if there is a settlement in favour of the Trust, then I suspect it will be ordered by the court at the same value per share that the sellouts got. |  |
| Prediction league winner 2016-2017 aka llanedeyrnjack |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:23 - Oct 15 with 737 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 12:16 - Oct 15 by Algorfajack |
When it goes to court & if there is a settlement in favour of the Trust, then I suspect it will be ordered by the court at the same value per share that the sellouts got. |
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]
|  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:32 - Oct 15 with 703 views | BillyChong |
| 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]
|
How much did the sellouts donate to charity? | | | |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:34 - Oct 15 with 703 views | 3swan |
| 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]
|
No money would go to lawyers if the Trust was offered the 2016 rate for their shares without the need for a court case. Can you also guarantee the club returning to the Premier League soon and a buyer out there to buy the Trust shares as double the 2016 price? | | | |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 17:37 - Oct 15 with 672 views | Chief |
| 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]
|
Oh I thought you didn't talk about a minor shareholder?
So you're making stuff up again then? Do you actually know the relationship the trust has worked out with their funders and legal team? Completely pure guess work this is isn't it!?
Why should this particular shareholder give their money to charity then? On what basis? | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 17:43 - Oct 15 with 667 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:34 - Oct 15 by 3swan |
No money would go to lawyers if the Trust was offered the 2016 rate for their shares without the need for a court case. Can you also guarantee the club returning to the Premier League soon and a buyer out there to buy the Trust shares as double the 2016 price? |
Yes that poster is do blinkered, they are completely oblivious to the fact that there wouldn't be a need for lawyers at this stage had due process been followed initially. Yet he for some suspicious reason places no blame on the instigators of this situation. They are the ones who've lead to lawyers earning more money.
He'll bring up Burnley now. Even though they're a premier league side who own their stadium and we're as far away from that as we've been for a decade. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:17 - Oct 15 with 661 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 17:37 - Oct 15 by Chief |
Oh I thought you didn't talk about a minor shareholder?
So you're making stuff up again then? Do you actually know the relationship the trust has worked out with their funders and legal team? Completely pure guess work this is isn't it!?
Why should this particular shareholder give their money to charity then? On what basis? |
Yes speculation. You are a member what are the actually figures please outline them from what you know. I am going on sector precedence. The members should know the facts.
This process has taken 5+ years. It is likely that the current membership and the voting membership is not the same. Like the leadership it has changed. The new leader has admitted that the US owners are not the people they were painted as in 2016 and 2017.
I believe the new cash has saved the club from serious financial issues.
Clearly a case for a new vote once the actual figures are known. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:25 - Oct 15 with 660 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:17 - Oct 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Yes speculation. You are a member what are the actually figures please outline them from what you know. I am going on sector precedence. The members should know the facts.
This process has taken 5+ years. It is likely that the current membership and the voting membership is not the same. Like the leadership it has changed. The new leader has admitted that the US owners are not the people they were painted as in 2016 and 2017.
I believe the new cash has saved the club from serious financial issues.
Clearly a case for a new vote once the actual figures are known. |
What precedence would that be?
So what are you saying that there should be another vote? So on the one hand you're making an issue about the time it's taken and then suggesting there should be another vote, delaying it further. Bizarre.
Has he admitted that? I believe the stated that Silverstein is receptive and engaging but haven't seen anything regarding the actual owners. Not that their performance is particularly relevant. This isn't about punishing them.
Very desperate this Resloven. There is zero appetite for another vote. You better start accepting it's happening. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:54 - Oct 15 with 643 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:25 - Oct 15 by Chief |
What precedence would that be?
So what are you saying that there should be another vote? So on the one hand you're making an issue about the time it's taken and then suggesting there should be another vote, delaying it further. Bizarre.
Has he admitted that? I believe the stated that Silverstein is receptive and engaging but haven't seen anything regarding the actual owners. Not that their performance is particularly relevant. This isn't about punishing them.
Very desperate this Resloven. There is zero appetite for another vote. You better start accepting it's happening. |
I thought it was a done deal and was happening. I was surprised to see the "If and when" quote. Hence the thread.
It is still an 'IF'. Keeping outside third parties out of the club's business is something I promote. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:15 - Oct 15 with 635 views | 3swan |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 17:37 - Oct 15 by Chief |
Oh I thought you didn't talk about a minor shareholder?
So you're making stuff up again then? Do you actually know the relationship the trust has worked out with their funders and legal team? Completely pure guess work this is isn't it!?
Why should this particular shareholder give their money to charity then? On what basis? |
I'm going back a few years so things might have changed, but I seem to remember the rules governing the Trust as associates of Supporters Direct are very tight on what the Trust can use their money for, and I don't think giving it to anything outside football related is allowed? | | | |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:23 - Oct 15 with 627 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:54 - Oct 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I thought it was a done deal and was happening. I was surprised to see the "If and when" quote. Hence the thread.
It is still an 'IF'. Keeping outside third parties out of the club's business is something I promote. |
Well I'm pretty sure if the Americans went with a settlement offer the trust would listen and if suitable that would negate going to court. That's a big if though and the Americans are leaving it late.
Of course it's an if, nothing is certain until that gavel comes down. But it's certain that the trust are preparing for legal proceedings as per very recent update.
No third parties are or will be involved in the club's business. Unless you're talking about non shareholding money lenders who are given a place on the board? | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:28 - Oct 15 with 619 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:15 - Oct 15 by 3swan |
I'm going back a few years so things might have changed, but I seem to remember the rules governing the Trust as associates of Supporters Direct are very tight on what the Trust can use their money for, and I don't think giving it to anything outside football related is allowed? |
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. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
