| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:12 - Oct 28 with 866 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:44 - Oct 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
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. |
Haha I'm completely addressing all of your points repeatedly. Unfortunately you're so blinkered and brainwashed you ignore them and copy and paste the same waffle you always do.
They will be taking the club's money out of the club to pay their personal commitments. It maybe be disguised as a high interest loan. But it's still stealing the football club's money.
Where has Winter stated the loan doesn't need to be repaid. If it doesn't need to be repaid it's not a loan. Big sums that the Americans should have been prepared to pay from the day they first bid for shares.
Oh I thought we did need loans to "keep us affloat'?
Yes that's a repeat of what you keep saying - the Americans are going to sell off our best players and pocket the cash.
Haha you've quite openly spoken that you don't think the trust will win the case at several points in the past. Yet you won't comment on something that goes against your idea.you are an absolute joke.
Yes I'm also focusing on that and have presented you with I feel is a likely outcome. But you don't have the balls to consider it.
Another copy and paste paragraph.
What evidence do you have that the trust can't handle large sums of money then? I may have to get the klaxon out now. Yes I will:
****RANDOM UNWARRANTED DIG AT SUPPORTERS TRUST ALERT****
We're in the championship and shares aren't worth what they were when we were in the prem. It'll take ages to reach those levels through inflation so you're talking nonsense. And of course there's no obvious buyers. Another point you can't square and ignore. You're also completely ignoring again what you've been told many times regarding the trust - what they can and can't put their money in. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
The team will only be set back if the Americans choose to set it back. Which would be ridiculously dull seeing as they're never sell at anything resembling their initial outlay plus loans in league 1 which would be a very real possibility.
You're making that up though. As above if they steal 12million pound from the club in quick fashion we'll sink without trace.
Go on - try and tackle the questions I posed at the end of my last post. Or are you too scared of what the answers will be? |  |
|  |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:14 - Oct 28 with 859 views | Chief |
| 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 |
Yes well as I've alluded to...
If the Americans are ordered to pay, can they start counter proceedings against the sellouts? I'm no legal expert but from the information that's available, it seems entirely plausible to me. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:54 - Oct 28 with 830 views | BillyChong |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 19:14 - Oct 28 by Chief |
Yes well as I've alluded to...
If the Americans are ordered to pay, can they start counter proceedings against the sellouts? I'm no legal expert but from the information that's available, it seems entirely plausible to me. |
Possibly if the Americans suffer a loss from a non-disclosure during the sale e.g. shareholders agreement |  | | |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 21:34 - Oct 28 with 821 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 20:54 - Oct 28 by BillyChong |
Possibly if the Americans suffer a loss from a non-disclosure during the sale e.g. shareholders agreement |
Well they've publically stated they weren't aware of any agreement when they bought the club (not sure how they didn't find out about it during due diligence, it's no secret) and it would certainly explain the laughable attempts by the sellouts to try and have the agreement annulled. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 13:33 - Oct 29 with 764 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
I have been trying to point out the negative effects on the club from a court case. it is likely that as a notional 'unintended consequence' the club will be lumbered with debt. It has no debt at present as the loan is due to be converted in s new shares (investment) .
Any person with any common sense will understand the US people will not convert their £10m loan if they need £20m to pay off the SCST and their London partners. Chief calls this "theft". Oh dear.
They will buy the 21% shares at current market value (£9m) and recover the loan to pay the rest. Winter will need to get a new commercial loan. People said the 5% was not generous. Winter can get a cheaper one if he can. Swansea does not like loans and debt so will probably endeavour to sell Piroe, Downes and Ntcham to keep the books straight as they were 2002 -2017. The SCST premium on their share will (in effect) be paid for by selling Piroe and co and will also cover the costs of the London agencies they employ.
The SCST have no track record of investment and sensible money management such that they can hedge their assets against the effects of inflation. Accounts show that for one year they were getting 0.15% on their cash. This is very poor. Their charter suggests they can invest in other investments as I understand the legalise. Their interest was £1320 from a holding of £880,000. I was getting 1.1% on my business account up until Covid struck (an equivalent £9,690). An interest of 4% from money markets or property would see them earn £35,200 a years. This is needed to avoid cash stagnation. I hope the new leadership is studying the documentation.
The 2 or 3 posters / members engaged on here are not interested in the club or their SCST own balance sheet, just potential harm it can do to the sellers. (settling scores) This is very depressing.
Up to now the SCST has been a huge disappointment to me. Hopefully the new board will be more positive look to the future and reject 'small town politics' and guide its members to make correct decisions in the interests of the club and themselves.
Remember Burnley was sold for £200m using loan by the Dell corporation. 21% of £200m is £42m. Cooperball took Swansea to 90 mins of this valuation. Even at a discounted £150m it is still £31.5m. No buyers? Burnley and Newcastle sold in the last year. Today talk that West Ham shares are under offer. Bargain basement buyers around Derby. |  |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:40 - Oct 29 with 756 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 13:33 - Oct 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have been trying to point out the negative effects on the club from a court case. it is likely that as a notional 'unintended consequence' the club will be lumbered with debt. It has no debt at present as the loan is due to be converted in s new shares (investment) .
Any person with any common sense will understand the US people will not convert their £10m loan if they need £20m to pay off the SCST and their London partners. Chief calls this "theft". Oh dear.
They will buy the 21% shares at current market value (£9m) and recover the loan to pay the rest. Winter will need to get a new commercial loan. People said the 5% was not generous. Winter can get a cheaper one if he can. Swansea does not like loans and debt so will probably endeavour to sell Piroe, Downes and Ntcham to keep the books straight as they were 2002 -2017. The SCST premium on their share will (in effect) be paid for by selling Piroe and co and will also cover the costs of the London agencies they employ.
The SCST have no track record of investment and sensible money management such that they can hedge their assets against the effects of inflation. Accounts show that for one year they were getting 0.15% on their cash. This is very poor. Their charter suggests they can invest in other investments as I understand the legalise. Their interest was £1320 from a holding of £880,000. I was getting 1.1% on my business account up until Covid struck (an equivalent £9,690). An interest of 4% from money markets or property would see them earn £35,200 a years. This is needed to avoid cash stagnation. I hope the new leadership is studying the documentation.
The 2 or 3 posters / members engaged on here are not interested in the club or their SCST own balance sheet, just potential harm it can do to the sellers. (settling scores) This is very depressing.
Up to now the SCST has been a huge disappointment to me. Hopefully the new board will be more positive look to the future and reject 'small town politics' and guide its members to make correct decisions in the interests of the club and themselves.
Remember Burnley was sold for £200m using loan by the Dell corporation. 21% of £200m is £42m. Cooperball took Swansea to 90 mins of this valuation. Even at a discounted £150m it is still £31.5m. No buyers? Burnley and Newcastle sold in the last year. Today talk that West Ham shares are under offer. Bargain basement buyers around Derby. |
Not sure you can call deliberately lumbering the club with debt through choice (which is what you are saying will happen) unintended. The Americans will be making a conscious decision to do so.
No you're completely misinterpreting what I have clearing classed as theft. Taking loaned money (presumably money loaned apparently to help the club through Covid and keep us competitive) back is not theft. Not figuratively or literally.
Deliberately lumbering the club with debt with the sole intention of charging the football club extortionate interest (and thereby) taking its funds purely to pay for the owner's personal committments is absolutely theft in my book. Theres an obvious distinction between the two scenarios which for some reason you are unable to differentiate. Oh dear.
Not sure what you were drinking when you wrote the third paragraph. They will buy the 21% shares at the premier league 2016 value for start. Winter won't NEED to get a commercial loan at all. Ok so why didn't Winter get a cheaper than 5% loan then? Where are you going with this? We don't like loans or debt? Well why do we currently have a loan (debt) then? During which time we signed the like of Piroe and Downes? You sound rather confused.
And what relevance is any of that next paragraph? And of course you already know what they are and aren't allowed to invest in so keep bringing that up as a criticism is making you look very silly. Especially your hypotheticals and figures from what they should be getting/have got when all the time knowing such avenues aren't allowed / possible. Yes I'm sure they are reading the documentation.
Nope, this is another point where you fall down when debating with me. I'm very careful to always be balanced and I can't be accused of not acknowledging the achievements of the previous board or the current owners performance. If there was no financial incentive for the trust in this, I wouldn't be for court action.
In what way are they a huge disappointment? Take away your obvious bias and tell me exactly how the Supporters Trust has been a 'disappointment' exactly in their role as a supporters trust? Leaving this court case aside then. Doubt there'll be any specific examples forthcoming.
Never mind about Burnley. They are currently 8 odd year veterans of the premier league, are unlikely to get relegated this season either and own their own stadium. We're not comparable to them currently nor will we likely in the short term. And of course that doesn't mean anyone at that point will want to buy the trust's shares.
So I see you're still dodging the counter claim onto the sellouts scenario. Whys that then?
Try addressing all the points I make like I do to yours and skipping over things that you choose to ignore because you know it'll damage your agenda. Have a go, must be far more fulfilling than repeating the same tired Burnley type tropes and Mr discrediting them all the time. The other board readers must be bored of you [Post edited 29 Oct 2021 14:49]
| |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:05 - Oct 29 with 742 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:40 - Oct 29 by Chief |
Not sure you can call deliberately lumbering the club with debt through choice (which is what you are saying will happen) unintended. The Americans will be making a conscious decision to do so.
No you're completely misinterpreting what I have clearing classed as theft. Taking loaned money (presumably money loaned apparently to help the club through Covid and keep us competitive) back is not theft. Not figuratively or literally.
Deliberately lumbering the club with debt with the sole intention of charging the football club extortionate interest (and thereby) taking its funds purely to pay for the owner's personal committments is absolutely theft in my book. Theres an obvious distinction between the two scenarios which for some reason you are unable to differentiate. Oh dear.
Not sure what you were drinking when you wrote the third paragraph. They will buy the 21% shares at the premier league 2016 value for start. Winter won't NEED to get a commercial loan at all. Ok so why didn't Winter get a cheaper than 5% loan then? Where are you going with this? We don't like loans or debt? Well why do we currently have a loan (debt) then? During which time we signed the like of Piroe and Downes? You sound rather confused.
And what relevance is any of that next paragraph? And of course you already know what they are and aren't allowed to invest in so keep bringing that up as a criticism is making you look very silly. Especially your hypotheticals and figures from what they should be getting/have got when all the time knowing such avenues aren't allowed / possible. Yes I'm sure they are reading the documentation.
Nope, this is another point where you fall down when debating with me. I'm very careful to always be balanced and I can't be accused of not acknowledging the achievements of the previous board or the current owners performance. If there was no financial incentive for the trust in this, I wouldn't be for court action.
In what way are they a huge disappointment? Take away your obvious bias and tell me exactly how the Supporters Trust has been a 'disappointment' exactly in their role as a supporters trust? Leaving this court case aside then. Doubt there'll be any specific examples forthcoming.
Never mind about Burnley. They are currently 8 odd year veterans of the premier league, are unlikely to get relegated this season either and own their own stadium. We're not comparable to them currently nor will we likely in the short term. And of course that doesn't mean anyone at that point will want to buy the trust's shares.
So I see you're still dodging the counter claim onto the sellouts scenario. Whys that then?
Try addressing all the points I make like I do to yours and skipping over things that you choose to ignore because you know it'll damage your agenda. Have a go, must be far more fulfilling than repeating the same tired Burnley type tropes and Mr discrediting them all the time. The other board readers must be bored of you [Post edited 29 Oct 2021 14:49]
|
A lot of vacuous words that mean very little and designed to confused simple souls. My job is to simplify things without cut and paste. You do not understand finance it is clear and obvious to anyone with brains reading this thread. It is a discussion piece based on what I have read with no inside knowledge or any personal involvement. My aim is to promote the best for the club and keep profits in south west Wales.
The US people have given the club £10m to pay off any Covid debts and to purchase Piroe and Co, at knockdown prices in a depressed market. They will only theoretically take interest if they do not convert the loan as I understand it. They have effectively already written off this money. They will only get it back if they sell the club at more than the 2021 value.
If they get a £21m bill they clearly will take their money back and use it to buy the SCST shares which the Court will have forced them to do in the event of a SCST win. Withdrawing the loan means Winter will need a new commercial loan. Traditionally Swansea have always sold players to pay of loans. This is regrettable but the owners will have no choice as the alternative is further court penalties.
Half the bill for the court case will be paid for by a return of the loan from the club. They used it to buy Piroe. They will pay it back by selling Piroe. All seems pretty logical to me.
The SCST have been a disappointment because it has taken a confrontational approach using whatever leverage it has at its disposal. It appears anti investment as has too many shares and too little cash. It always did. Investment has to be done by other shareholders not them. The people putting the money into the club when it needs it are promoted by some bad guys like Silverstein, Levien, Kaplan and Morgan. I hope the new man at the SCST has seen the light. The last 20 years at the club are the most stable it has been in the whole history of the club at least in my time. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:40 - Oct 29 with 735 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:05 - Oct 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
A lot of vacuous words that mean very little and designed to confused simple souls. My job is to simplify things without cut and paste. You do not understand finance it is clear and obvious to anyone with brains reading this thread. It is a discussion piece based on what I have read with no inside knowledge or any personal involvement. My aim is to promote the best for the club and keep profits in south west Wales.
The US people have given the club £10m to pay off any Covid debts and to purchase Piroe and Co, at knockdown prices in a depressed market. They will only theoretically take interest if they do not convert the loan as I understand it. They have effectively already written off this money. They will only get it back if they sell the club at more than the 2021 value.
If they get a £21m bill they clearly will take their money back and use it to buy the SCST shares which the Court will have forced them to do in the event of a SCST win. Withdrawing the loan means Winter will need a new commercial loan. Traditionally Swansea have always sold players to pay of loans. This is regrettable but the owners will have no choice as the alternative is further court penalties.
Half the bill for the court case will be paid for by a return of the loan from the club. They used it to buy Piroe. They will pay it back by selling Piroe. All seems pretty logical to me.
The SCST have been a disappointment because it has taken a confrontational approach using whatever leverage it has at its disposal. It appears anti investment as has too many shares and too little cash. It always did. Investment has to be done by other shareholders not them. The people putting the money into the club when it needs it are promoted by some bad guys like Silverstein, Levien, Kaplan and Morgan. I hope the new man at the SCST has seen the light. The last 20 years at the club are the most stable it has been in the whole history of the club at least in my time. |
Nothing complicated about it, my responses to you make it clear I've clearly understood everything. Unfortunately I'm struggling to see the same grasp of my points primarily because you choose to simply ignore them. Care to demonstrate precisely where I've demonstrated a lack of understanding in finance? I'm certainly no expert but this isn't particularly complex. Unfortunately your aim with your words in this thread is to send profits to the USA.
Not sure value that second paragraph adds. It does make somewhat of a mockery of your previous viewpoint that the loan was 'keeping the club afloat'.
They may take their loan back, at least the club won't have to pay much interest then. The rest is copy and paste. Yes we get it, you think the Americans are going the steal club money to pay their personal bills off. Why would Winter need any loan if the plan is to sell off players anyway? A commercial loan? From a commercial outlet? So not from the Americans themselves? How will this benefit them? The owners do have plenty of choices. Yes so another's repeat, they're going to weaken the team to pay their own personal gain. Half the bill of court case will presumably total half of 21million so 10.5mill. the shareholders whom this action is against have only loaned the club around 5/6 mill. So how can they pay the court order fee out of that? They're going to steal off Silverstein too are they? Who was it that doesn't understand finance again? £6million is less than 10.5million see.
That's a certain plus point of a supporters trust. Thanks for demonstrating it. Questioning owners who've just colluded against the club's supporters trust is exactly what I'd want them to do. Any supporter of the football club should be skeptical of 'investment'. You've been repeatedly telling us that these owners are going to steal club funds under the guise of loans so again, it's thumbs up too. And of course all owners are going to want their money back in shape or form at some point. But of course you've only made points regarding their relationship with the American owners and case here which is rather telling and against the task I set you. Indeed the last 20 years has been the most stable. The trust has been there for all of those years while the Americans have only been here for 5 which I'd say has coincided with a period of turbulence.
So back to my questions. Pay attention this time, you seem to have overlooked then previously.
- Do you think the owners selling players will weaken the team? We'll start with that one on that topic.
- what are your thoughts on the counter suit scenario? None of us are legal experts here. Come on don't be scared. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:56 - Oct 30 with 662 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 16:40 - Oct 29 by Chief |
Nothing complicated about it, my responses to you make it clear I've clearly understood everything. Unfortunately I'm struggling to see the same grasp of my points primarily because you choose to simply ignore them. Care to demonstrate precisely where I've demonstrated a lack of understanding in finance? I'm certainly no expert but this isn't particularly complex. Unfortunately your aim with your words in this thread is to send profits to the USA.
Not sure value that second paragraph adds. It does make somewhat of a mockery of your previous viewpoint that the loan was 'keeping the club afloat'.
They may take their loan back, at least the club won't have to pay much interest then. The rest is copy and paste. Yes we get it, you think the Americans are going the steal club money to pay their personal bills off. Why would Winter need any loan if the plan is to sell off players anyway? A commercial loan? From a commercial outlet? So not from the Americans themselves? How will this benefit them? The owners do have plenty of choices. Yes so another's repeat, they're going to weaken the team to pay their own personal gain. Half the bill of court case will presumably total half of 21million so 10.5mill. the shareholders whom this action is against have only loaned the club around 5/6 mill. So how can they pay the court order fee out of that? They're going to steal off Silverstein too are they? Who was it that doesn't understand finance again? £6million is less than 10.5million see.
That's a certain plus point of a supporters trust. Thanks for demonstrating it. Questioning owners who've just colluded against the club's supporters trust is exactly what I'd want them to do. Any supporter of the football club should be skeptical of 'investment'. You've been repeatedly telling us that these owners are going to steal club funds under the guise of loans so again, it's thumbs up too. And of course all owners are going to want their money back in shape or form at some point. But of course you've only made points regarding their relationship with the American owners and case here which is rather telling and against the task I set you. Indeed the last 20 years has been the most stable. The trust has been there for all of those years while the Americans have only been here for 5 which I'd say has coincided with a period of turbulence.
So back to my questions. Pay attention this time, you seem to have overlooked then previously.
- Do you think the owners selling players will weaken the team? We'll start with that one on that topic.
- what are your thoughts on the counter suit scenario? None of us are legal experts here. Come on don't be scared. |
Your words aim is to send easy money (the Trusts) money to London Town funding and lawyers agencies for doing very little.
You are so shrewd you voted for legal action but have no idea how much it will cost. Tell us what it will cost. You are a member or is this a secret? People in the know tell me 40% of any return are not unusual for this type of case.
What type of person votes for something without knowing the cost of? Are you really promoting something you have no idea what it costs?
You also have no idea what the SCST can invest in. So what is the point of suing the other owners for cash. I have read the charter and investment is possible. So why is there no plan?
You are using words like 'steal' to describe the return of a potential investment. This is spin. You a have also talked of exorbitant fees. we know the CLN is 5% do you consider that exorbitant. What about the funders fees remind me what was that again?
Here is my fag packet assessment in very simple terms in the absence of hard figures.
Before any court win.
Swansea city football club
Debt
Before : Debt £0. After £12,000,000. Paying interest rates of probably greater than 5%
Costing at least £600,000 pa
SCST balance sheet
Before : Balance £1m After £13,000,000. Receiving interest 0.15% (from accounts figures)
Receiving £19,500.
SCST love bankers lawyers and funders to be sure.
You do not understand the the CLN if converted is not recoverable. it is the club's money and will be recovered when they sell the club in 10 years time or more.
All nice and simple for the readership to understand. By the way Burnley was sold for £200m with a chunky loan from the Dell Corporation of 9% pa. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:10 - Oct 30 with 649 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:56 - Oct 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Your words aim is to send easy money (the Trusts) money to London Town funding and lawyers agencies for doing very little.
You are so shrewd you voted for legal action but have no idea how much it will cost. Tell us what it will cost. You are a member or is this a secret? People in the know tell me 40% of any return are not unusual for this type of case.
What type of person votes for something without knowing the cost of? Are you really promoting something you have no idea what it costs?
You also have no idea what the SCST can invest in. So what is the point of suing the other owners for cash. I have read the charter and investment is possible. So why is there no plan?
You are using words like 'steal' to describe the return of a potential investment. This is spin. You a have also talked of exorbitant fees. we know the CLN is 5% do you consider that exorbitant. What about the funders fees remind me what was that again?
Here is my fag packet assessment in very simple terms in the absence of hard figures.
Before any court win.
Swansea city football club
Debt
Before : Debt £0. After £12,000,000. Paying interest rates of probably greater than 5%
Costing at least £600,000 pa
SCST balance sheet
Before : Balance £1m After £13,000,000. Receiving interest 0.15% (from accounts figures)
Receiving £19,500.
SCST love bankers lawyers and funders to be sure.
You do not understand the the CLN if converted is not recoverable. it is the club's money and will be recovered when they sell the club in 10 years time or more.
All nice and simple for the readership to understand. By the way Burnley was sold for £200m with a chunky loan from the Dell Corporation of 9% pa. |
They wouldn't have send any money if the Americans / sellouts had conducted their business properly. So you can blame them for this bee in your bonnet.
Do you think it wise the trust release details of their finances and what arrangements they have prior to the case commencing? You obviously don't understand the legal chess game that's going on. Telling your opponent what capital you have to play with is not a good idea now is it?
Who are these people in the know then? What other cases of this type of case did they cite? I'm confident that the trust board who are the only ones who should know the costs involved would have clearly noted that the costs in proceeding would be prohibitive if it were the case. They haven't. So I'll take their view over a known biased fabricator such as yourself.
As above. Common sense really. You can't really be that clueless surely? Or are you pretending to be?
Why do you say I have no idea? I've told you several times in the past what I think they can invest in. Another thing you're choosing to ignore and misrepresent. Yes it's possible, in certain things. Why should they announce the plan now? Before they know what's going to be done with it? Why not wait and then present the options to the membership? You're vendetta is making you extremely bitter and illogical.
You stated yourself they would asset strip. Now you're saying they are going to invest? Well if the trust action results in them investing surely you back the trust's actions. You 'welcome' investment. Yes 5% is higher than it should be. Exhorbitant isnt a word I've used personally to describe that so not sure why you've attributed it to me. The funders fees aren't public, nor should they be. And that isn't football clubs own funds, it's the trust's funds.
You obviously don't understand finances. Before court action the debt is £10/12 million (the unconverted loan). And you obviously are struggling with the English language too because it's been clearly stated that court action isn't against the club so the club isn't going to go into debt following the case. So you're assessment is entirely flawed from the off.
Not sure SCST love those professions but they're necessary for the position they've been put in but other parties. In an ideal world they wouldn't be required. The Americans will be using lawyers too presumably. What are their costs? What city are they from? Godforbid it's London?
Why do you think I don't understand that? Another try at being disingenuous. Can you provide a specific example of where I haven't understood that? Nope another empty attempt at an insult. Desperate. The fact remains, currently the money is still a loan and will need to be repaid.
And the readership will be eminently aware of Burnley's position on the totem pole in comparison to ours and be as dumbfounded as I am as to why you think that to be a case study worth bringing up repeatedly.
Right now that's out of the way...
Are you going to have a crack at questions 1 or 2 or still too scared? | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 21:33 - Oct 30 with 594 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 18:10 - Oct 30 by Chief |
They wouldn't have send any money if the Americans / sellouts had conducted their business properly. So you can blame them for this bee in your bonnet.
Do you think it wise the trust release details of their finances and what arrangements they have prior to the case commencing? You obviously don't understand the legal chess game that's going on. Telling your opponent what capital you have to play with is not a good idea now is it?
Who are these people in the know then? What other cases of this type of case did they cite? I'm confident that the trust board who are the only ones who should know the costs involved would have clearly noted that the costs in proceeding would be prohibitive if it were the case. They haven't. So I'll take their view over a known biased fabricator such as yourself.
As above. Common sense really. You can't really be that clueless surely? Or are you pretending to be?
Why do you say I have no idea? I've told you several times in the past what I think they can invest in. Another thing you're choosing to ignore and misrepresent. Yes it's possible, in certain things. Why should they announce the plan now? Before they know what's going to be done with it? Why not wait and then present the options to the membership? You're vendetta is making you extremely bitter and illogical.
You stated yourself they would asset strip. Now you're saying they are going to invest? Well if the trust action results in them investing surely you back the trust's actions. You 'welcome' investment. Yes 5% is higher than it should be. Exhorbitant isnt a word I've used personally to describe that so not sure why you've attributed it to me. The funders fees aren't public, nor should they be. And that isn't football clubs own funds, it's the trust's funds.
You obviously don't understand finances. Before court action the debt is £10/12 million (the unconverted loan). And you obviously are struggling with the English language too because it's been clearly stated that court action isn't against the club so the club isn't going to go into debt following the case. So you're assessment is entirely flawed from the off.
Not sure SCST love those professions but they're necessary for the position they've been put in but other parties. In an ideal world they wouldn't be required. The Americans will be using lawyers too presumably. What are their costs? What city are they from? Godforbid it's London?
Why do you think I don't understand that? Another try at being disingenuous. Can you provide a specific example of where I haven't understood that? Nope another empty attempt at an insult. Desperate. The fact remains, currently the money is still a loan and will need to be repaid.
And the readership will be eminently aware of Burnley's position on the totem pole in comparison to ours and be as dumbfounded as I am as to why you think that to be a case study worth bringing up repeatedly.
Right now that's out of the way...
Are you going to have a crack at questions 1 or 2 or still too scared? |
The costs of legal action was prohibitive from day one. They always are. The SCST are funding their case on the Trust's money or asset valuation in 2016. The exact value is somewhat irrelevant to them as it is no single person's money and members appear to have a casual attitude to it. This is what the funders are counting on.
The SCST shares should have been up for sale after the first 2015 interest. They would have saved themselves millions. The sale was always going to happen. The French guy and South African were not fans they were 'Venture capitalists'. This was a massive blunder for an organisation worth £21,000,000.
Member of forums did not know the numbers but voted for it anyway. Like I said casual. Billy Chong another supporter of the case did not even know the US people would be involved. I call them eye watering. The vote was years ago and the US owners are not viewed in the same way as they were then. The membership has also altered most probably with younger people less focused on small town politics. The past SCST seemed unable to network with the US people. The new people appear to be more sophisticated and willing to work constructively.
The US lawyers will be from the US paid for by the US people. They are already sharpening their claws. I am sure they will be thoroughly unpleasant individuals.
Winter is working on the basis that the CLN is an investment and he has already spent the money on players and pitch and stadium maintenance and clearing Covid deficits. Many of us were surprised at the quality of the signings. He does not expect to have to pay it back unless a court case happens and the other owners lose the case. If he has to give it back he will need to get a commercial loan. You reckon it will be less than 5% but admit you are no expert. A court case lose to the SCST will in my opinion be very bad for the club setting it back 2 seasons.
As for your questions.
a) Do i think selling players will affect the squad? Certainly it will but the US owners via Winter have established a very good recruitment team. Fulton ad Dhanda have been upgraded massively with Downes, Patterson and Ntcham. The more money they have to spend the better. The £10m CLN money doing nothing in the SCST current account getting 0.15% interest is no use to anyone other than Santander Bank. This is old Welsh farmer economics. I find it astonishing the membership think like this.
b) Counter suing? I do not think it will happen. Legal disputes at board level are holistically bad for the club as a whole. They are Welsh / US company and working in harmony. The objective of the cub is to get to the Premier league and Burnley style valuation. Newcastle West ham Burnley were / are all subject to eye watering bids in the last 12 months. The Welsh board members are highly skilled and highly valued members of the team and have a track record of success. Swansea fans should love them if they had any sense. Its a tough world out there and these people put Swansea city FC on the map after decades of neglect poverty and alleged skulduggery. The Vetch was so dilapidated it is a surprised no one was killed in that dump. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:07 - Oct 30 with 587 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 21:33 - Oct 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The costs of legal action was prohibitive from day one. They always are. The SCST are funding their case on the Trust's money or asset valuation in 2016. The exact value is somewhat irrelevant to them as it is no single person's money and members appear to have a casual attitude to it. This is what the funders are counting on.
The SCST shares should have been up for sale after the first 2015 interest. They would have saved themselves millions. The sale was always going to happen. The French guy and South African were not fans they were 'Venture capitalists'. This was a massive blunder for an organisation worth £21,000,000.
Member of forums did not know the numbers but voted for it anyway. Like I said casual. Billy Chong another supporter of the case did not even know the US people would be involved. I call them eye watering. The vote was years ago and the US owners are not viewed in the same way as they were then. The membership has also altered most probably with younger people less focused on small town politics. The past SCST seemed unable to network with the US people. The new people appear to be more sophisticated and willing to work constructively.
The US lawyers will be from the US paid for by the US people. They are already sharpening their claws. I am sure they will be thoroughly unpleasant individuals.
Winter is working on the basis that the CLN is an investment and he has already spent the money on players and pitch and stadium maintenance and clearing Covid deficits. Many of us were surprised at the quality of the signings. He does not expect to have to pay it back unless a court case happens and the other owners lose the case. If he has to give it back he will need to get a commercial loan. You reckon it will be less than 5% but admit you are no expert. A court case lose to the SCST will in my opinion be very bad for the club setting it back 2 seasons.
As for your questions.
a) Do i think selling players will affect the squad? Certainly it will but the US owners via Winter have established a very good recruitment team. Fulton ad Dhanda have been upgraded massively with Downes, Patterson and Ntcham. The more money they have to spend the better. The £10m CLN money doing nothing in the SCST current account getting 0.15% interest is no use to anyone other than Santander Bank. This is old Welsh farmer economics. I find it astonishing the membership think like this.
b) Counter suing? I do not think it will happen. Legal disputes at board level are holistically bad for the club as a whole. They are Welsh / US company and working in harmony. The objective of the cub is to get to the Premier league and Burnley style valuation. Newcastle West ham Burnley were / are all subject to eye watering bids in the last 12 months. The Welsh board members are highly skilled and highly valued members of the team and have a track record of success. Swansea fans should love them if they had any sense. Its a tough world out there and these people put Swansea city FC on the map after decades of neglect poverty and alleged skulduggery. The Vetch was so dilapidated it is a surprised no one was killed in that dump. |
Even by your Domesday predictions they aren't prohibitive. Still a gigantic mark up on the initial outlay and more than what the shares are currently worth. Plus the added bonus of a a buyer. Hardly irrelevant, very important, but not for public consumption obviously. how do you know the funders thoughts then?
Only a blunder if you could know for certain that putting the shares up for sale would definitely have to lead to someone paying £21mill for them. Which is impossible to say. Apart from Noell there were no other real interest (and that was not just the trust's shares) ever so it's highly unlikely that anyone would have actually decided to buy 21% of the club and be a minority owner. We know for example for whatever reason the current owners weren't / aren't keen on buying them. So why you think putting them up for sale would have lead to anyone else buying them is strange. No nope, no blunder, just another random unsubstantiated swipe. Do you actually think these things through before posting them?
Like I keep telling you, but ignoring (this is becoming a theme. I advise you to change, you're coming across as extremely ill informed), why would the trust publicly announce the extent of their legal warchest prior to the case? The rest has also been addressed repeatedly and us an example of you tripping up over yourself. Moan about the time it's taken, but want another vote. Laughable. There's absolutely no appetite for another vote. There is however for getting on with the case. The new board are working constructively on a day to day basis on the running of the club with the people who on a day to day basis run the club. There's been no evidence of constructive discourse over the the shareholding issue with the owners (note their unfulfilled promises on that).
Bloody Americans taking money they could be investing in Swansea City FC And spending it on New York frat boys. Terrible behaviour.
You're making things up again there. There's been absolutely no talk or evidence from Winter or anyone that the repayment of the loan is dependent on court action. Not sure what difference what the loan was spent on makes. No point having it and not spending it. A commercial loan for what? And yes many posters in the past have stated 5% higher than many places. So if we're replacing the 5% loan with a lower interest one from elsewhere, that's good news for the football club.
Well the Americans may decide to set the club back 2 years. But that's a guaranteed two years longer they have to wait to claw back some semblance of their initial outlay. Their 'savvy', "resourceful' businessmen. They won't want to sabotage their own asset.
Wow you've grown some balls.
A) ah right so what you're describing there is how the club has always been run..... Buy low, develop, sell high. What's going to change exactly????
B) they maybe working in harmony now (with only 1 of the sellouts) but they may not be should unpalatable truths come back to haunt certain parties during the case and words spoken in the intervening words by other parties come to bite people on the ars ("we weren't aware of any shareholders agreement", "the sellers told us to exclude the trust" etc etc). Again, other clubs have no relevance to this. Newcastle hahaha. And the Americans are not going to care about the sellouts previous performances. You saw how swiftly they dealt with Huw after he defied them. I can't see there being sentiment when theres £21 million on the line and the potential for someone else to foot that bill that won't affect their own investment will surely be extremely tempting.
Stop kidding yourself
 | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:17 - Oct 31 with 548 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 22:07 - Oct 30 by Chief |
Even by your Domesday predictions they aren't prohibitive. Still a gigantic mark up on the initial outlay and more than what the shares are currently worth. Plus the added bonus of a a buyer. Hardly irrelevant, very important, but not for public consumption obviously. how do you know the funders thoughts then?
Only a blunder if you could know for certain that putting the shares up for sale would definitely have to lead to someone paying £21mill for them. Which is impossible to say. Apart from Noell there were no other real interest (and that was not just the trust's shares) ever so it's highly unlikely that anyone would have actually decided to buy 21% of the club and be a minority owner. We know for example for whatever reason the current owners weren't / aren't keen on buying them. So why you think putting them up for sale would have lead to anyone else buying them is strange. No nope, no blunder, just another random unsubstantiated swipe. Do you actually think these things through before posting them?
Like I keep telling you, but ignoring (this is becoming a theme. I advise you to change, you're coming across as extremely ill informed), why would the trust publicly announce the extent of their legal warchest prior to the case? The rest has also been addressed repeatedly and us an example of you tripping up over yourself. Moan about the time it's taken, but want another vote. Laughable. There's absolutely no appetite for another vote. There is however for getting on with the case. The new board are working constructively on a day to day basis on the running of the club with the people who on a day to day basis run the club. There's been no evidence of constructive discourse over the the shareholding issue with the owners (note their unfulfilled promises on that).
Bloody Americans taking money they could be investing in Swansea City FC And spending it on New York frat boys. Terrible behaviour.
You're making things up again there. There's been absolutely no talk or evidence from Winter or anyone that the repayment of the loan is dependent on court action. Not sure what difference what the loan was spent on makes. No point having it and not spending it. A commercial loan for what? And yes many posters in the past have stated 5% higher than many places. So if we're replacing the 5% loan with a lower interest one from elsewhere, that's good news for the football club.
Well the Americans may decide to set the club back 2 years. But that's a guaranteed two years longer they have to wait to claw back some semblance of their initial outlay. Their 'savvy', "resourceful' businessmen. They won't want to sabotage their own asset.
Wow you've grown some balls.
A) ah right so what you're describing there is how the club has always been run..... Buy low, develop, sell high. What's going to change exactly????
B) they maybe working in harmony now (with only 1 of the sellouts) but they may not be should unpalatable truths come back to haunt certain parties during the case and words spoken in the intervening words by other parties come to bite people on the ars ("we weren't aware of any shareholders agreement", "the sellers told us to exclude the trust" etc etc). Again, other clubs have no relevance to this. Newcastle hahaha. And the Americans are not going to care about the sellouts previous performances. You saw how swiftly they dealt with Huw after he defied them. I can't see there being sentiment when theres £21 million on the line and the potential for someone else to foot that bill that won't affect their own investment will surely be extremely tempting.
Stop kidding yourself
|
Huw Jenkins was not sacked. He walked as he said he would if he lost influence. It is an in important distinction as he may have forgone a pay off. He sold the club to people who brought no debt and are keen to invest their own cash into the club to help it grow.
I have explained the scenario where by the US people will withdraw their investment if they are obliged by law to buy the SCST shares.
The fans can therefore decide for themselves whether the £10m given by the US is best
a) spent by Winter to buy player and avoid burdening the club with a £10m debt at 5%+ or
b) Best sitting in the Santander bank earning 015% interest for up to 20 years effectively devaluing by 45% against inflation (assumed 3%) | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:31 - Oct 31 with 543 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:17 - Oct 31 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Huw Jenkins was not sacked. He walked as he said he would if he lost influence. It is an in important distinction as he may have forgone a pay off. He sold the club to people who brought no debt and are keen to invest their own cash into the club to help it grow.
I have explained the scenario where by the US people will withdraw their investment if they are obliged by law to buy the SCST shares.
The fans can therefore decide for themselves whether the £10m given by the US is best
a) spent by Winter to buy player and avoid burdening the club with a £10m debt at 5%+ or
b) Best sitting in the Santander bank earning 015% interest for up to 20 years effectively devaluing by 45% against inflation (assumed 3%) |
Sacked / sidelined / mutual agreement. Amounts the same. He defied his American paymasters and was sidelined days later. Hmm stark contrast to Cooper 'walking out' campaign. Important distinction there too. With that one we know he received a pay off though, yet for some reason you refused to acknowledge that. Irrelevant who Huw sold the club to. The point was how they co-exist now. The fact is, they don't so your point once again is nonsense.
You've explained it yes and I've explained several times how silly that would be for them to do that, a point you can't possibly disagree with yet refuse to acknowledge.
They can decide that....if it's a binary choice, which of course it won't be.
a) it's already been spent I thought? To get through covid, buy players, new pitch??? The story's changing again now. Avoid burdening? Uh the club already if burdened with a 10mill debt with 5% interest!
b) well the trust's money will come from the Americans own personal wealth, not the club's. So sorry silly point to make again. Try a rethink. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:44 - Oct 31 with 540 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:31 - Oct 31 by Chief |
Sacked / sidelined / mutual agreement. Amounts the same. He defied his American paymasters and was sidelined days later. Hmm stark contrast to Cooper 'walking out' campaign. Important distinction there too. With that one we know he received a pay off though, yet for some reason you refused to acknowledge that. Irrelevant who Huw sold the club to. The point was how they co-exist now. The fact is, they don't so your point once again is nonsense.
You've explained it yes and I've explained several times how silly that would be for them to do that, a point you can't possibly disagree with yet refuse to acknowledge.
They can decide that....if it's a binary choice, which of course it won't be.
a) it's already been spent I thought? To get through covid, buy players, new pitch??? The story's changing again now. Avoid burdening? Uh the club already if burdened with a 10mill debt with 5% interest!
b) well the trust's money will come from the Americans own personal wealth, not the club's. So sorry silly point to make again. Try a rethink. |
The £10m in the CLN also comes for the US peoples own personal wealth. If the club fans want it in the club it will go to the club.
If the fans force them to put in the SCST current account after finding legal clauses it will go there. This will leave winter with a £10M shortfall to be filled by debt.
If the SCST can identify a better investment for the money than i would like to hear of it. So far their best cash investment is around 0.15% per annum in Santander. 2.85% less than annual inflation.
The work of Scott Allen and Martin tells me the SCST money is far better off with them. Piroe Ntchm and Downes in particular are great investments. A bit more than 0.15% do you not think.?
I would agree with you if he US people were not investing and falling down the league. But they are and have employed some good people. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:54 - Oct 31 with 536 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:44 - Oct 31 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The £10m in the CLN also comes for the US peoples own personal wealth. If the club fans want it in the club it will go to the club.
If the fans force them to put in the SCST current account after finding legal clauses it will go there. This will leave winter with a £10M shortfall to be filled by debt.
If the SCST can identify a better investment for the money than i would like to hear of it. So far their best cash investment is around 0.15% per annum in Santander. 2.85% less than annual inflation.
The work of Scott Allen and Martin tells me the SCST money is far better off with them. Piroe Ntchm and Downes in particular are great investments. A bit more than 0.15% do you not think.?
I would agree with you if he US people were not investing and falling down the league. But they are and have employed some good people. |
If club fans want it in the club it will go to the club? Uh? They've already loaned it to the club, it's already there?
The fans aren't forcing that because for a start only half of it is related to people involved in the case. The other half could be taken out but I thought it was being used 'to keep the club afloat'. Strange these astute businessmen would choose to sink their own company. The 10mill is already debt.....
Maybe they can, maybe they can't. Highly irrelevant though currently. I'm sure there's a plan, but let's see how much is forthcoming first is it. As you know, the options to supporters trust are limited and options will have to be discussed amongst the members. You've been told this, yet another point you refuse to acknowledge. Your blinkered ignorance is a huge downfall.
If the Americans choose to starve the recruitment team of funds that's their bag sorry. Blame them.
You're the one telling that the Americans are going to steal club funds and asset strip the squad which will inevitably lead to relegation though.....
So trust action presumably completely justified. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 00:31 - Nov 1 with 489 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 14:54 - Oct 31 by Chief |
If club fans want it in the club it will go to the club? Uh? They've already loaned it to the club, it's already there?
The fans aren't forcing that because for a start only half of it is related to people involved in the case. The other half could be taken out but I thought it was being used 'to keep the club afloat'. Strange these astute businessmen would choose to sink their own company. The 10mill is already debt.....
Maybe they can, maybe they can't. Highly irrelevant though currently. I'm sure there's a plan, but let's see how much is forthcoming first is it. As you know, the options to supporters trust are limited and options will have to be discussed amongst the members. You've been told this, yet another point you refuse to acknowledge. Your blinkered ignorance is a huge downfall.
If the Americans choose to starve the recruitment team of funds that's their bag sorry. Blame them.
You're the one telling that the Americans are going to steal club funds and asset strip the squad which will inevitably lead to relegation though.....
So trust action presumably completely justified. |
You asked me why the US people have not converted the reported £10 CLN already. I have provided you with an explanation I believe it credible. They will convert the loan into new shares when the court case is dropped and not before. There is still around 4 years on the loan.
You continue to misquote mislead and confuse in you standard way. The paying off of a loan by the club to the owner is not theft. Winter has probably already spent the loan and announced no debt because he expects it to be converted. The £10m debt you refer to will be written off and converted in equity like Vincent Tan has done.
Whether the loan is converted or not is effectively, in my opinion, up to the SCST and the Court. Levien and Silverstein want to by a percentage of the club with the loan by issuing new shares. The value of the new shares has gone to Winter. If they have to buy the SCST shares by law they will do that instead and the money will go to the SCST not the club.
Its not surprising you cannot understand this. Try harder its not that complicated. The SCST will be faced with an interesting moral dilemma. Their cash pile will come directly from the clubs accounts. They will not be able to argue a winning case will not adversely affect he club. It will. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 07:21 - Nov 1 with 462 views | Chief |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 00:31 - Nov 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You asked me why the US people have not converted the reported £10 CLN already. I have provided you with an explanation I believe it credible. They will convert the loan into new shares when the court case is dropped and not before. There is still around 4 years on the loan.
You continue to misquote mislead and confuse in you standard way. The paying off of a loan by the club to the owner is not theft. Winter has probably already spent the loan and announced no debt because he expects it to be converted. The £10m debt you refer to will be written off and converted in equity like Vincent Tan has done.
Whether the loan is converted or not is effectively, in my opinion, up to the SCST and the Court. Levien and Silverstein want to by a percentage of the club with the loan by issuing new shares. The value of the new shares has gone to Winter. If they have to buy the SCST shares by law they will do that instead and the money will go to the SCST not the club.
Its not surprising you cannot understand this. Try harder its not that complicated. The SCST will be faced with an interesting moral dilemma. Their cash pile will come directly from the clubs accounts. They will not be able to argue a winning case will not adversely affect he club. It will. |
Well I've asked several times but never had a decent answer. So you believe they're waiting for cases conclusion? In fairness that's wise, it'll cause all sorts of confusion. They shouldn't be changing the shareholding while there's ongoing litigation. (Although the papers have only recently been served), they had nearly a year prior.
What have I misquoted? What are you confused about? You've stated they'll be getting loans as a mechanism to getting the club's funds. Disguising it as loan interest is still stealing it. Well we'll see, as it stands it's still a loan.
Well it's up to the Americans. Silverstein even part of the action so he can't do what he wants. Ultimately it's the Americans decision if they want to convert or not.
What am I apparently not understanding then? Got any specific examples? Probably not. Sorry Resloven don't get ratty now because I'm disproving the points you've made and posing points you can't / won't answer.
The SCST won't, they aren't forcing the Americans to steal the club's money. If they want to sabotage their own asset &send it to league 1 to claw back a fraction of their overall outlay, that silliness will squarely at the Americans door and no one else's. They are the only ones with the power to do that. | |
| |
| If not when, when not if. ? on 08:35 - Nov 1 with 442 views | onehunglow |
And this action isn’t divisive .?
We seem to have a squad capable of flying up the league table.
Russ has work in progress .
Wonder how he feels about this action.
Anyone not believing it is distracting is rather naive .IMO | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
