| Stadium area blocked off. 21:55 - Oct 30 with 2879 views | Flashberryjack |
Today, I came out of the Riverside lounge after the game, and went to walk down to Harvester for a pint whilst we were waiting for our lift to pick us up (as we we usually do).
As we preceded to walk down, we were stopped by a steward who informed us that this part of the stadium was blocked off, in order for players to get to their cars without coming into contact with supporters.
Peoples club my ar*e. |  |
| |  |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 23:58 - Oct 31 with 851 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 19:27 - Oct 31 by vetchonian |
I repeat the famous quote which I think is attributable to you hero our much lamented former chairman Huw Jenkins
" By the fans for the fans" |
He more than anyone turned every £1 they invested into £100 by 2015 and put US buyers (he and his colleagues found) in front of them on a table twice with cash to spend. They could have also found their own buyers as well of course over the 7 years in the Premier league. The SCST has had various opinions on selling over the last 6-7 years. Relegation was the turning point in opinion.
Football club ownership is super high risk. The SCST in my opinion stayed in the 'casino' for too long. They are angry because the lost their winnings like every losing punter who does not know when to quit and cash in. Relegation happens to all PL clubs outside the big 6 and Everton.
They owned 21% of the club and still do. The form of the football club varies over time and the club has been close to a return to the PL in the last two seasons. Fans still own 21% of Swansea and are still on the Board.
His words were true. Huw J has gone but they remain and always will. They need to do some thinking and reject the confrontational ways of the past. A return to the PL will see the asset price double that of 2016 and up to 3 times that money recovered from a 100% win in court.
Narratives of impending doom have been found to be false. The vote to go to court was based on a defective prognosis of asset stripping and decline promoted on anonymous forums. What we have is in fact rebound and pending investment and a debt free club with two maybe three superb playing assets all under 25 bought in for pennies. They can be sold of to pay off the SCST if need be.
Once the SCST is gone they can do what they like by paying special dividends to clear any debts . The consequences to the other owners will be short term. They are proven winners.
The SCST are uncomfortable with wheeling and dealing and undulating fortunes. They liked year on year growth and expansion 2002 -2015. That was an unique passing phase and could not last indefinitely. Club transfers 100% successful up to 2014 became desperate and erratic with injuries and fragile mentalities costing.
Garry Monk getting to 8th was as good as it gets. That was clearly the time to sell up. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 05:39 - Nov 1 with 808 views | Whiterockin |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 23:58 - Oct 31 by ReslovenSwan1 |
He more than anyone turned every £1 they invested into £100 by 2015 and put US buyers (he and his colleagues found) in front of them on a table twice with cash to spend. They could have also found their own buyers as well of course over the 7 years in the Premier league. The SCST has had various opinions on selling over the last 6-7 years. Relegation was the turning point in opinion.
Football club ownership is super high risk. The SCST in my opinion stayed in the 'casino' for too long. They are angry because the lost their winnings like every losing punter who does not know when to quit and cash in. Relegation happens to all PL clubs outside the big 6 and Everton.
They owned 21% of the club and still do. The form of the football club varies over time and the club has been close to a return to the PL in the last two seasons. Fans still own 21% of Swansea and are still on the Board.
His words were true. Huw J has gone but they remain and always will. They need to do some thinking and reject the confrontational ways of the past. A return to the PL will see the asset price double that of 2016 and up to 3 times that money recovered from a 100% win in court.
Narratives of impending doom have been found to be false. The vote to go to court was based on a defective prognosis of asset stripping and decline promoted on anonymous forums. What we have is in fact rebound and pending investment and a debt free club with two maybe three superb playing assets all under 25 bought in for pennies. They can be sold of to pay off the SCST if need be.
Once the SCST is gone they can do what they like by paying special dividends to clear any debts . The consequences to the other owners will be short term. They are proven winners.
The SCST are uncomfortable with wheeling and dealing and undulating fortunes. They liked year on year growth and expansion 2002 -2015. That was an unique passing phase and could not last indefinitely. Club transfers 100% successful up to 2014 became desperate and erratic with injuries and fragile mentalities costing.
Garry Monk getting to 8th was as good as it gets. That was clearly the time to sell up. |
Yawn. |  | | |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 15:07 - Nov 1 with 734 views | onehunglow |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 15:05 - Nov 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They were not in a position to sell because they had no mandate in 2016. They had no mandate as their board member declared in 2015 they did not want to sell and in fact would never sell as it was against the constitution.
Had they been open to selling surely they would have got a mandate in 2015. The chairman of the club had flagged up that changes had to be made at roughly the same time when Shelvey had to be sold.
Silverstein is keen to buy 5% of the club and the US owners welcome his input so much so they have put him on the board. He is an investor. If the SCST bring something to the table they will have more clout.
SCST are so weak they fear they cannot sell their shares and use legal clauses to force other 'partners' to buy them off them against their will. What kind of business is this? They could consider a sales agent for example.
Why not work constructively and sign a tag on agreement? Silverstein will sell eventually and does not have 30-40% commissions?
If the SCST had a plan for the money I might have some time for them but there is no plan other than 0.15% in Santander it seems.
The US owners have loaned the club £10m and will take it back if the fans sue them. If they drop the case they will not ask for the money back and convert it into shares.
If the SCST are keen on selling then they should be friendly and work constructively with the other owners. Kaplan's firm Oaktree have a whopping £158,000,000,000 under management. If he cannot sell the SCST shares nobody can. |
I was told this action doesn’t affect the club at all.
Innit |  |
| |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 18:27 - Nov 1 with 718 views | Chief |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 15:05 - Nov 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They were not in a position to sell because they had no mandate in 2016. They had no mandate as their board member declared in 2015 they did not want to sell and in fact would never sell as it was against the constitution.
Had they been open to selling surely they would have got a mandate in 2015. The chairman of the club had flagged up that changes had to be made at roughly the same time when Shelvey had to be sold.
Silverstein is keen to buy 5% of the club and the US owners welcome his input so much so they have put him on the board. He is an investor. If the SCST bring something to the table they will have more clout.
SCST are so weak they fear they cannot sell their shares and use legal clauses to force other 'partners' to buy them off them against their will. What kind of business is this? They could consider a sales agent for example.
Why not work constructively and sign a tag on agreement? Silverstein will sell eventually and does not have 30-40% commissions?
If the SCST had a plan for the money I might have some time for them but there is no plan other than 0.15% in Santander it seems.
The US owners have loaned the club £10m and will take it back if the fans sue them. If they drop the case they will not ask for the money back and convert it into shares.
If the SCST are keen on selling then they should be friendly and work constructively with the other owners. Kaplan's firm Oaktree have a whopping £158,000,000,000 under management. If he cannot sell the SCST shares nobody can. |
Nor did they have any offers to sell. Which is an imperative requirement of selling anything.
The mandate could have been sought following any offers for the shares. An offer which never came. Of course that chairman did receive offers for his holding but decided not to share that information unfortunately.
Not sure what Silversteins relevance is. If he was that keen he'd have bought 5% outright or converted by now. But there we are. Unfortunately the trust's "clout' was conspired away from them by shareholders doing things like selling their voting rights. You say on another thread the trust are working constructively with the rest of the board so moot point anyway.
Haha 'weak'. Don't worry then. All this fretting you're doing is for nought. Such a weak organisation would surely never win a case. Legal clauses that the other shareholders signed up for you mean!?
You have a very strange definition of weak. Weak would be meekly accepting the status quo. You do sound rattled though.
A tag on agreement you say? So an agreement between shareholders you say? Hmm that sounds familiar..... Silverstein isn't even a shareholder so can't sign on anyway.
As I keep telling you (this ignorance of yours is really getting the better of you), rough plans have been released 'rainy day'. It would be ridiculously unwise and arrogant to publicly release any further information before the case, not even knowing what the sum if any would be. But you know this, this isn't rocket science. Just a desperate stick trying in vain to beat.
Might not be a bad thing to take it back - the club pays less interest and now the crowds are back, it might be the most sustainable move really.
The trust have tried discussing selling their shares to the Americans for years. Grow up and realise the Americans do not want to buy them. Nor do any of their mates. If they did they would have bid for them. Especially now knowing a case is coming and that bidder could save their American buddies hassle & legal fees. But nothing.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Back to the West stand segregation barriers!
[Post edited 1 Nov 2021 18:38]
|  |
| |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 23:55 - Nov 1 with 681 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 18:27 - Nov 1 by Chief |
Nor did they have any offers to sell. Which is an imperative requirement of selling anything.
The mandate could have been sought following any offers for the shares. An offer which never came. Of course that chairman did receive offers for his holding but decided not to share that information unfortunately.
Not sure what Silversteins relevance is. If he was that keen he'd have bought 5% outright or converted by now. But there we are. Unfortunately the trust's "clout' was conspired away from them by shareholders doing things like selling their voting rights. You say on another thread the trust are working constructively with the rest of the board so moot point anyway.
Haha 'weak'. Don't worry then. All this fretting you're doing is for nought. Such a weak organisation would surely never win a case. Legal clauses that the other shareholders signed up for you mean!?
You have a very strange definition of weak. Weak would be meekly accepting the status quo. You do sound rattled though.
A tag on agreement you say? So an agreement between shareholders you say? Hmm that sounds familiar..... Silverstein isn't even a shareholder so can't sign on anyway.
As I keep telling you (this ignorance of yours is really getting the better of you), rough plans have been released 'rainy day'. It would be ridiculously unwise and arrogant to publicly release any further information before the case, not even knowing what the sum if any would be. But you know this, this isn't rocket science. Just a desperate stick trying in vain to beat.
Might not be a bad thing to take it back - the club pays less interest and now the crowds are back, it might be the most sustainable move really.
The trust have tried discussing selling their shares to the Americans for years. Grow up and realise the Americans do not want to buy them. Nor do any of their mates. If they did they would have bid for them. Especially now knowing a case is coming and that bidder could save their American buddies hassle & legal fees. But nothing.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Back to the West stand segregation barriers!
[Post edited 1 Nov 2021 18:38]
|
As far as i know the SCST could have sold their shares on their own anytime over the last 18 years, They did not need the sellers and they do not need the US people. They are free to sell their shares just as they were free to buy them.
They are weak in my eyes as they want other people to do their sales work for them and were not prepared to work it out for themselves. Why buy shares if they were never prepared to work to sell them?.
You might argue it was very difficult to sell but even then with a x100 mark up on their investment they had plenty of slack to cut the asking price. Their associates want a 30-40% commission. A sales agency would have presumably charge much less. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 07:44 - Nov 2 with 658 views | Chief |
| Stadium area blocked off. on 23:55 - Nov 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As far as i know the SCST could have sold their shares on their own anytime over the last 18 years, They did not need the sellers and they do not need the US people. They are free to sell their shares just as they were free to buy them.
They are weak in my eyes as they want other people to do their sales work for them and were not prepared to work it out for themselves. Why buy shares if they were never prepared to work to sell them?.
You might argue it was very difficult to sell but even then with a x100 mark up on their investment they had plenty of slack to cut the asking price. Their associates want a 30-40% commission. A sales agency would have presumably charge much less. |
Yes they are / could..... In theory. But the proof is in the pudding. The majority of the shares have been bought once & nobody wanted the trust's shares. Very publicly there's been negotiations and an impending legal action for years and same result.
Well they are trying to sell them now. Going to court is actually the sales process. And that's entirely the point - they are working it out for themselves. Because who's going to want to buy 21% shares in a club and have no say - no one. But they are and have been prepared to sell them. That's been clear for years?
Yea of someone would have approached them I'm sure they could have / would have cut the price. But nobody did..... You're guessing on the 30%-40% charge. And if that figure were true, would it not give the green light to would be investors the world over to bid for the shares at say a 20% deduction. But no, still no bids....
Not sure why you're having so much difficulty understanding this. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
