| The Resloven and Chief love in... 11:36 - Nov 13 with 7164 views | Catullus |
Title and thread changed to reflect that Resloven has hijacked it and refuses to stay on OP..
Thank you Resloven.
New change by request of AFD! [Post edited 23 Nov 2021 12:31]
|  |
| |  |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 15:34 - Nov 13 with 3562 views | Boundy |
Good post and I'm afraid all too true. In the EFL the haves and the have nots seem to have been more pronounced over the past couple of years and I can only seethe gap getting bigger . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:25 - Nov 13 with 3542 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Money is good for Swansea city. The club cannot always be competitive at top level but they managed it 2011 -2015 or so.
Swansea fans really need to wise up and love their own history and not be dragged into toxic political rhetoric of 'greed' 'Judas' 'pieces of silver' 'sellouts' and this bunkum. Over the last 20 years money made was reinvested and can be seen in bricks mortar and up to 350 local jobs. If fans cannot differentiate between the seller and Mr Petty then I can only assume they are very dim.
The club could now face a period of small profits and even dividends. This is good not bad. The US owner have bought their shares for £70m or so. A 3% return on this is £2m and a nice little cheque of £600,000 for the SCST. A payment of £3m per annum from the club to the owners. If this can go on for 10 years then the US owners get £20m of their money back and the SCST £6m in the bank.
The Man city Abu Dhabi money built Fairwood and the Landore academy.. They bought Sinclair and Bony for £35m for a straight £19m trading profit.
Swansea missed the parachute funded return to the premier leagues when Mr McCauley gave Potter 3 duffers and one mercurial talent for the £7m the US owners released. Potter has already demonstrated his excellence.
With James, McBurnie, Rodon and Roberts coming through and Fer, Routledge, Dyer, Olssen and Vd Horn still at the club the £7m well spent should have been promotion challenging. John, McKay and Asoro was £4m wasted. |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:59 - Nov 13 with 3515 views | Whiterockin |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:25 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Money is good for Swansea city. The club cannot always be competitive at top level but they managed it 2011 -2015 or so.
Swansea fans really need to wise up and love their own history and not be dragged into toxic political rhetoric of 'greed' 'Judas' 'pieces of silver' 'sellouts' and this bunkum. Over the last 20 years money made was reinvested and can be seen in bricks mortar and up to 350 local jobs. If fans cannot differentiate between the seller and Mr Petty then I can only assume they are very dim.
The club could now face a period of small profits and even dividends. This is good not bad. The US owner have bought their shares for £70m or so. A 3% return on this is £2m and a nice little cheque of £600,000 for the SCST. A payment of £3m per annum from the club to the owners. If this can go on for 10 years then the US owners get £20m of their money back and the SCST £6m in the bank.
The Man city Abu Dhabi money built Fairwood and the Landore academy.. They bought Sinclair and Bony for £35m for a straight £19m trading profit.
Swansea missed the parachute funded return to the premier leagues when Mr McCauley gave Potter 3 duffers and one mercurial talent for the £7m the US owners released. Potter has already demonstrated his excellence.
With James, McBurnie, Rodon and Roberts coming through and Fer, Routledge, Dyer, Olssen and Vd Horn still at the club the £7m well spent should have been promotion challenging. John, McKay and Asoro was £4m wasted. |
How much did the club put into Fairwood and how much the University? |  | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:07 - Nov 13 with 3454 views | Catullus |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:25 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Money is good for Swansea city. The club cannot always be competitive at top level but they managed it 2011 -2015 or so.
Swansea fans really need to wise up and love their own history and not be dragged into toxic political rhetoric of 'greed' 'Judas' 'pieces of silver' 'sellouts' and this bunkum. Over the last 20 years money made was reinvested and can be seen in bricks mortar and up to 350 local jobs. If fans cannot differentiate between the seller and Mr Petty then I can only assume they are very dim.
The club could now face a period of small profits and even dividends. This is good not bad. The US owner have bought their shares for £70m or so. A 3% return on this is £2m and a nice little cheque of £600,000 for the SCST. A payment of £3m per annum from the club to the owners. If this can go on for 10 years then the US owners get £20m of their money back and the SCST £6m in the bank.
The Man city Abu Dhabi money built Fairwood and the Landore academy.. They bought Sinclair and Bony for £35m for a straight £19m trading profit.
Swansea missed the parachute funded return to the premier leagues when Mr McCauley gave Potter 3 duffers and one mercurial talent for the £7m the US owners released. Potter has already demonstrated his excellence.
With James, McBurnie, Rodon and Roberts coming through and Fer, Routledge, Dyer, Olssen and Vd Horn still at the club the £7m well spent should have been promotion challenging. John, McKay and Asoro was £4m wasted. |
Point gloriously missed as you launched into another of your little fairy stories.
This isn't to do with hating our history or making money, it has nothing to do with sell outs or the trust.
It has to do with greed and how EPL money is causing football to be less and less competitive, along the way it's causing many clubs major financial problems.
The upcoming period for Swansea will depend on how well we are run. We re not in the EPL and we are not getting parachute payments.
When did I mention either a seller or Tony Petty?
See you're at it again, rushing out a defence of things that weren't even mentioned, something you have done on several threads.
Tell me, do you think it is fair that fewer clubs can aspire to attain promotion to the EPL because the relegated clubs have a massive financial advantage? | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:26 - Nov 13 with 3364 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:07 - Nov 13 by Catullus |
Point gloriously missed as you launched into another of your little fairy stories.
This isn't to do with hating our history or making money, it has nothing to do with sell outs or the trust.
It has to do with greed and how EPL money is causing football to be less and less competitive, along the way it's causing many clubs major financial problems.
The upcoming period for Swansea will depend on how well we are run. We re not in the EPL and we are not getting parachute payments.
When did I mention either a seller or Tony Petty?
See you're at it again, rushing out a defence of things that weren't even mentioned, something you have done on several threads.
Tell me, do you think it is fair that fewer clubs can aspire to attain promotion to the EPL because the relegated clubs have a massive financial advantage? |
I told you why money in football is good not bad. You are a political preacher pontificating at the corrupting influence of cash. This drivel has turned heroic figures like Huw Jenkins into villains. It produced 300 jobs for starters,
I have explained to you that while Abu Dhbi money is on the face of it compromising football competition was actually good for Swansea after selling them £35m of talent in Bony and Sinclair. Swansea turned this cash into state of the art facilities and funded the academy.
Swansea had every chance to get back to the premier league and the owners did their part. Poor players were dispensed with like Clucas, Ki and Amat and replaced with by highly rated young players like McBurne Roberts and James. Furthermore the club gave Potter £7m. You were not whinging how unfair it was then.
I have researched a list of players bought by other clubs that summer 2018 for pennies on sensible wages. Emi Buendia, Andy Yiadom, Jonson Clark Harris, Ben Wilmott, Ryan Fredricks, Ezra Konsa, Sirikli Dembele, Lyle Taylor, Charie Wyke, Adam Armstrong, Ivan Toney, Josh Da Silva.
McCauley came up with Celina, John , Asoro and Mckay. It cost.
. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 00:24 - Nov 14 with 3348 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:25 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Money is good for Swansea city. The club cannot always be competitive at top level but they managed it 2011 -2015 or so.
Swansea fans really need to wise up and love their own history and not be dragged into toxic political rhetoric of 'greed' 'Judas' 'pieces of silver' 'sellouts' and this bunkum. Over the last 20 years money made was reinvested and can be seen in bricks mortar and up to 350 local jobs. If fans cannot differentiate between the seller and Mr Petty then I can only assume they are very dim.
The club could now face a period of small profits and even dividends. This is good not bad. The US owner have bought their shares for £70m or so. A 3% return on this is £2m and a nice little cheque of £600,000 for the SCST. A payment of £3m per annum from the club to the owners. If this can go on for 10 years then the US owners get £20m of their money back and the SCST £6m in the bank.
The Man city Abu Dhabi money built Fairwood and the Landore academy.. They bought Sinclair and Bony for £35m for a straight £19m trading profit.
Swansea missed the parachute funded return to the premier leagues when Mr McCauley gave Potter 3 duffers and one mercurial talent for the £7m the US owners released. Potter has already demonstrated his excellence.
With James, McBurnie, Rodon and Roberts coming through and Fer, Routledge, Dyer, Olssen and Vd Horn still at the club the £7m well spent should have been promotion challenging. John, McKay and Asoro was £4m wasted. |
Oh dear another Resloven misappropriation thread spesh....
What makes you think Swansea fans don't love the history of the club? What a bizarre thing to say. What's Petty got to do with this!? What does any of this got to do with parachute payments?
Why would any fan of the club advocate for any of the shareholders to take dividends at this point? Russell Martin should rightfully demand that any profits are reinvested in the squad. Again the glee you display while describing the Americans taking money out of the club is extremely suspicious. |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 00:34 - Nov 14 with 3345 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:26 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I told you why money in football is good not bad. You are a political preacher pontificating at the corrupting influence of cash. This drivel has turned heroic figures like Huw Jenkins into villains. It produced 300 jobs for starters,
I have explained to you that while Abu Dhbi money is on the face of it compromising football competition was actually good for Swansea after selling them £35m of talent in Bony and Sinclair. Swansea turned this cash into state of the art facilities and funded the academy.
Swansea had every chance to get back to the premier league and the owners did their part. Poor players were dispensed with like Clucas, Ki and Amat and replaced with by highly rated young players like McBurne Roberts and James. Furthermore the club gave Potter £7m. You were not whinging how unfair it was then.
I have researched a list of players bought by other clubs that summer 2018 for pennies on sensible wages. Emi Buendia, Andy Yiadom, Jonson Clark Harris, Ben Wilmott, Ryan Fredricks, Ezra Konsa, Sirikli Dembele, Lyle Taylor, Charie Wyke, Adam Armstrong, Ivan Toney, Josh Da Silva.
McCauley came up with Celina, John , Asoro and Mckay. It cost.
. |
Nonsense, Huw Jenkins made himself a villain by his own actions. He's got no one else to blame for the disdain he's held in by the fans but himself and his fellow sellouts.
What you seem to fail to grasp is that not spending that 7mill wouldn't have automatically meant spending it on these players you name. So finishing 10th and trying to say it cost us promotion is unrealistic. It's highly unlikely that 4 alternative players would be individually as successful as those you name. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 08:16 - Nov 14 with 3296 views | BillyChong |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:26 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I told you why money in football is good not bad. You are a political preacher pontificating at the corrupting influence of cash. This drivel has turned heroic figures like Huw Jenkins into villains. It produced 300 jobs for starters,
I have explained to you that while Abu Dhbi money is on the face of it compromising football competition was actually good for Swansea after selling them £35m of talent in Bony and Sinclair. Swansea turned this cash into state of the art facilities and funded the academy.
Swansea had every chance to get back to the premier league and the owners did their part. Poor players were dispensed with like Clucas, Ki and Amat and replaced with by highly rated young players like McBurne Roberts and James. Furthermore the club gave Potter £7m. You were not whinging how unfair it was then.
I have researched a list of players bought by other clubs that summer 2018 for pennies on sensible wages. Emi Buendia, Andy Yiadom, Jonson Clark Harris, Ben Wilmott, Ryan Fredricks, Ezra Konsa, Sirikli Dembele, Lyle Taylor, Charie Wyke, Adam Armstrong, Ivan Toney, Josh Da Silva.
McCauley came up with Celina, John , Asoro and Mckay. It cost.
. |
These 300 jobs you keep mentioning, how many are left following the sale to the Americans and the poor decisions that cost us our place in the top division? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 12:54 - Nov 14 with 3215 views | Catullus |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:26 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I told you why money in football is good not bad. You are a political preacher pontificating at the corrupting influence of cash. This drivel has turned heroic figures like Huw Jenkins into villains. It produced 300 jobs for starters,
I have explained to you that while Abu Dhbi money is on the face of it compromising football competition was actually good for Swansea after selling them £35m of talent in Bony and Sinclair. Swansea turned this cash into state of the art facilities and funded the academy.
Swansea had every chance to get back to the premier league and the owners did their part. Poor players were dispensed with like Clucas, Ki and Amat and replaced with by highly rated young players like McBurne Roberts and James. Furthermore the club gave Potter £7m. You were not whinging how unfair it was then.
I have researched a list of players bought by other clubs that summer 2018 for pennies on sensible wages. Emi Buendia, Andy Yiadom, Jonson Clark Harris, Ben Wilmott, Ryan Fredricks, Ezra Konsa, Sirikli Dembele, Lyle Taylor, Charie Wyke, Adam Armstrong, Ivan Toney, Josh Da Silva.
McCauley came up with Celina, John , Asoro and Mckay. It cost.
. |
And yet again you have to bring Jenkins into it, it literally has nothing to do with Jenkins.
Lets look at the second paragraph. yes that money built the infrastructure, an infrastructure we can no longer afford because we are not getting parachute payments or El riches. Other clubs that are (and the money has gone up again recently) have a massive advantage, it's making the division into an unfair competition, just like the EPL is. teams getting promoted from League One have very little chance of progressing further.
Your third paragraph is wrong too, I got a fair amount of stick from some when I said I was happier in the Championship because EPL money is ruining the game.
You seem to think 7 million is a lot of money, it is hardly that, parachute payments for the next relegated team will be 40 and then 30 million. That blows our spending power away and we are one of the lucky clubs not in a financial straightjacket. Getting relegated has sent other clubs into a tailspin, some have still not recovered.
There will always be bargains to be had, they are not the point and never were. If a relegated EPL club wants a player they have a massive financial advantage. If we really are in for Balogun but Bournemouth go in for him too, they can offer more chance of success and offer him more money, because of parachute payments. Not because they are a bigger club or a better run club but purely because of parachutes.
If we must talk about bargains lets talk about Piroe. If we do faitly well this season and Piroe continues to score, gets 20+ goals, a relegated team may come sniffing, it could be Brentford, they may sell Toney and snatch Piroe from us, being able to afford the transfer fee and higher wages because of parachutes.
Parachute payments are destabilising the whole structure of the league. That Bony money, yes we built with it but then bringing Bony back darn near bankrupted us too. We had to sell other players to survive, weakening the team, lets not forget that. We couldn't sell Bony or Ayew because their wages were obscene. Who made those decisions? Oh forget it, he's not relevant.
There will always be bargains to be had | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:21 - Nov 14 with 3122 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 00:24 - Nov 14 by Chief |
Oh dear another Resloven misappropriation thread spesh....
What makes you think Swansea fans don't love the history of the club? What a bizarre thing to say. What's Petty got to do with this!? What does any of this got to do with parachute payments?
Why would any fan of the club advocate for any of the shareholders to take dividends at this point? Russell Martin should rightfully demand that any profits are reinvested in the squad. Again the glee you display while describing the Americans taking money out of the club is extremely suspicious. |
The US people have no plans to take money out of the club. In fact they have put money in as a loan and want to convert it into shares. There is only one owner that wants to extract cash which will affect the club adversely in my opinion. It is the one you are a member of.
Swansea fans talk about the clubs great Chairman Huw Jenkins with disrespect calling him names like "sellout". He was the architect of the greatest times of the club's history that lasted two decades and deserves huge respect Some claim his legacy has been ruined. I do not accept this.
The OP started whinging about what an unfair world it was that Swansea could not compete wit Bournemouth and Fulham due to not having a parachute. I explained to him that complaining about this once Swansea had spent it' s own parachute is 'whinging'. The best chance was under Potter but he spent the £7m transfer budget he was given badly. I gave a list of players he could have bought at that time including Ivan Toney.
I have raised fundamental questions about Swansea city going forward.
What is better
a) Losing millions in the Premier league paying players £80,000 a week with the minor shareholders being diluted with no profits and no dividends and the majority owners bring in new investors.
or
b) Making small profits every season in the Championship of around £5m and paying out £3m in dividends to keep the Shareholder including the SCST happy with an annual cheque of £630,000 or £50,000+ a month.
You are a member of the SCST and therefore part of the clubs ownership structure. Your body is threatening legal action for cash and to leave the club, They have always had the question of how to make money and not harm the club in some way. It is not possible.
As a member why not consider option b) to persuade you to stay. £11,000 a week. Not bad for doing next to nothing. If it money the SCST want then take it gradually in dividends in agreement with other shareholders.
A club run well in the Championship will make more income that a PL club chasing its tail and losing money with unhappy players beaten almost every week on huge wages.
The US people bought the club for £70m cash (no debt). They can get their money back with a profit in dividends without returning to the PL over 10 years then sell the club with no debt in the championship. The same applies to the SCST in this model with no third party fees.
Being a Swansea city shareholder is a good place to be in my opinion with the current club management. Legal action only makes sense if Swansea is in league 2 with debts. We do a lot of thinking in the shed on the hill in Resolven for you big city dimwits to consider. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:35 - Nov 14 with 3071 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:21 - Nov 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The US people have no plans to take money out of the club. In fact they have put money in as a loan and want to convert it into shares. There is only one owner that wants to extract cash which will affect the club adversely in my opinion. It is the one you are a member of.
Swansea fans talk about the clubs great Chairman Huw Jenkins with disrespect calling him names like "sellout". He was the architect of the greatest times of the club's history that lasted two decades and deserves huge respect Some claim his legacy has been ruined. I do not accept this.
The OP started whinging about what an unfair world it was that Swansea could not compete wit Bournemouth and Fulham due to not having a parachute. I explained to him that complaining about this once Swansea had spent it' s own parachute is 'whinging'. The best chance was under Potter but he spent the £7m transfer budget he was given badly. I gave a list of players he could have bought at that time including Ivan Toney.
I have raised fundamental questions about Swansea city going forward.
What is better
a) Losing millions in the Premier league paying players £80,000 a week with the minor shareholders being diluted with no profits and no dividends and the majority owners bring in new investors.
or
b) Making small profits every season in the Championship of around £5m and paying out £3m in dividends to keep the Shareholder including the SCST happy with an annual cheque of £630,000 or £50,000+ a month.
You are a member of the SCST and therefore part of the clubs ownership structure. Your body is threatening legal action for cash and to leave the club, They have always had the question of how to make money and not harm the club in some way. It is not possible.
As a member why not consider option b) to persuade you to stay. £11,000 a week. Not bad for doing next to nothing. If it money the SCST want then take it gradually in dividends in agreement with other shareholders.
A club run well in the Championship will make more income that a PL club chasing its tail and losing money with unhappy players beaten almost every week on huge wages.
The US people bought the club for £70m cash (no debt). They can get their money back with a profit in dividends without returning to the PL over 10 years then sell the club with no debt in the championship. The same applies to the SCST in this model with no third party fees.
Being a Swansea city shareholder is a good place to be in my opinion with the current club management. Legal action only makes sense if Swansea is in league 2 with debts. We do a lot of thinking in the shed on the hill in Resolven for you big city dimwits to consider. |
In your previous post you literally described the scenario whereby shareholders could soon be taking money out from the club. So this is another bizarre contradiction.
He was part of the greatest period in the club's history. Doesn't make him immune from criticism where it's deserved. And the way he sold out is a prime example of this. Hence sellout.
Oh yes that's the only part that barely had a relevance to the thread. I was highlighting the rest of the predictable, irrelevant guff around it.
And now you're back into the thread misappropriation full throttle, but ok....
Why are you giving me only two choices to choose from? neither of which could come true? We were in the premier league for a lengthy period, no one got diluted. And as for b you've just said the owners don't plan to take dividends, so by your own admission that isn't likely either?
Well it is possible, because the action isn't against the club.
How can the trust consider option b when by your own admission the owners aren't going to take dividends. So this is irrelevant. If it was going to happen maybe the Americans should offer this to the trust. They haven't.
And the rest is irrelevant because you've completely invalidated your own point by saying dividends aren't going to happen right at the start of your thread. and of course I'd prefer and all self respecting fans would prefer all profits to be reinvested in the squad.
Big city haha where do you think I'm from then?
'dimwits' hmm isn't that abusive language? Keith, Keith... | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 15:26 - Nov 15 with 2855 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:35 - Nov 14 by Chief |
In your previous post you literally described the scenario whereby shareholders could soon be taking money out from the club. So this is another bizarre contradiction.
He was part of the greatest period in the club's history. Doesn't make him immune from criticism where it's deserved. And the way he sold out is a prime example of this. Hence sellout.
Oh yes that's the only part that barely had a relevance to the thread. I was highlighting the rest of the predictable, irrelevant guff around it.
And now you're back into the thread misappropriation full throttle, but ok....
Why are you giving me only two choices to choose from? neither of which could come true? We were in the premier league for a lengthy period, no one got diluted. And as for b you've just said the owners don't plan to take dividends, so by your own admission that isn't likely either?
Well it is possible, because the action isn't against the club.
How can the trust consider option b when by your own admission the owners aren't going to take dividends. So this is irrelevant. If it was going to happen maybe the Americans should offer this to the trust. They haven't.
And the rest is irrelevant because you've completely invalidated your own point by saying dividends aren't going to happen right at the start of your thread. and of course I'd prefer and all self respecting fans would prefer all profits to be reinvested in the squad.
Big city haha where do you think I'm from then?
'dimwits' hmm isn't that abusive language? Keith, Keith... |
Fans have always wanted surplus cash invested in the squad and facilities. That is what the club s did from 2002 -2015. They have not so much money themselves because of this approach. There was no dilution due to the excellent trading and strategy of the sellers in particular Huw Jenkins. The strategy was going for growth not income.
There is nothing much else the club can do for growth other than expand the stadium in the Premier league. The club now owns the rights to the stadium to allow this. The OP complains how difficult it is to get promotion against parachute clubs. He is right.
I have given you and alternative route whereby the SCST and Silverstein and the Welsh shareholder can make a decent income without promotion based on the good work of Winter Allen and Martin. Dividends and small profits in the Championship £3m p.a. All the debts are cleared the legacy player of n huge salaries gone. A simple matter of profitable trading.
In 15 years of trading the SCST would bank £9m and the US owners would get their invested money back. If Winter can repeat his feat with Huddesfield and get to the PL with out big debts more the better.
This is a considered and consensual approach where all the money stays within Swansea and the owner of the club with a mutual benefit not depending on a luck bounce or refereeing decision at Wembley. The SCST would actually be financially better off if they are unable to invest themselves on global markets. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:11 - Nov 15 with 2844 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 15:26 - Nov 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Fans have always wanted surplus cash invested in the squad and facilities. That is what the club s did from 2002 -2015. They have not so much money themselves because of this approach. There was no dilution due to the excellent trading and strategy of the sellers in particular Huw Jenkins. The strategy was going for growth not income.
There is nothing much else the club can do for growth other than expand the stadium in the Premier league. The club now owns the rights to the stadium to allow this. The OP complains how difficult it is to get promotion against parachute clubs. He is right.
I have given you and alternative route whereby the SCST and Silverstein and the Welsh shareholder can make a decent income without promotion based on the good work of Winter Allen and Martin. Dividends and small profits in the Championship £3m p.a. All the debts are cleared the legacy player of n huge salaries gone. A simple matter of profitable trading.
In 15 years of trading the SCST would bank £9m and the US owners would get their invested money back. If Winter can repeat his feat with Huddesfield and get to the PL with out big debts more the better.
This is a considered and consensual approach where all the money stays within Swansea and the owner of the club with a mutual benefit not depending on a luck bounce or refereeing decision at Wembley. The SCST would actually be financially better off if they are unable to invest themselves on global markets. |
And so that should remain. Especially with the figures you've been quoting. £5mill a season profit? That can go far at our level.
But it's not an alternative. Because you've also stated the majority owners aren't planning to take any money out. So the dividend route is non existent. Certainly non existent for a non shareholder like long john Silver.
Well this is all lovely but you need to get on the blower to your American buddies and tell them this is a perfect plan of action for the whole club going forward. They're only ones who hold the power to enact this masterplan.
Oh and the fact that we probably won't make such profits every season. Pretty big blocker that! | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:25 - Nov 15 with 2775 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:11 - Nov 15 by Chief |
And so that should remain. Especially with the figures you've been quoting. £5mill a season profit? That can go far at our level.
But it's not an alternative. Because you've also stated the majority owners aren't planning to take any money out. So the dividend route is non existent. Certainly non existent for a non shareholder like long john Silver.
Well this is all lovely but you need to get on the blower to your American buddies and tell them this is a perfect plan of action for the whole club going forward. They're only ones who hold the power to enact this masterplan.
Oh and the fact that we probably won't make such profits every season. Pretty big blocker that! |
Your mates at the SCST want money and might go to court to get it.
As I have speculated in the event of a court win £10m will most probably come from the club as the investment is redirected from the club to the SCST. The CLN is meant as a non recoverable investment. It will only be recovered on sale of the club. Until converted it is recoverable within a 5 year period with interest from the club.
That £10m was used to clear debts arsing out of Covid, painting the stadium steel work,
relaying the pitch and buying Piroe Walsh Patterson and Downes. All great investments. The younger three will appreciate in value big time. Some money for the Ladies team perhaps and social activities in the community.
Members of his forum need to ask themselves what will the SCST do with that particular £10m? (half their payday). You do not seem to have any answers. The sponsorship of the kids league is very welcome but easily covered.
Let me enlighten you and other members.
0.15% interest in the Santander is the best they can do so far. About £3-4m of that £10m will probably end up in the pockets of financiers and insurers. I have asked you about an investment plan. Inflation will eat into the remaining £7m redirected money at a rate of £200,000 a year without sensible investments.
None of these thing s mean much to an average member perhaps. Here to help. I realise you will reply within minutes to submerge my post in a pile of text. I may have to start a new thread to make these interesting points more visible.
I think the member are wise enough to change their position. I think most voted for legal action of the basis that Swansea was heading t league 2 and possible administration after the US people had stripped the club and ran away after the parachutes stopped. Here we are in the championship with no debts and a £10m investment pending. Jake Jason and maybe even Steve will show up on January for a league 2 team at the Swansea.com and Winter will tell martin to pick his best 11 against Sutton Utd. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:57 - Nov 15 with 2758 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:25 - Nov 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Your mates at the SCST want money and might go to court to get it.
As I have speculated in the event of a court win £10m will most probably come from the club as the investment is redirected from the club to the SCST. The CLN is meant as a non recoverable investment. It will only be recovered on sale of the club. Until converted it is recoverable within a 5 year period with interest from the club.
That £10m was used to clear debts arsing out of Covid, painting the stadium steel work,
relaying the pitch and buying Piroe Walsh Patterson and Downes. All great investments. The younger three will appreciate in value big time. Some money for the Ladies team perhaps and social activities in the community.
Members of his forum need to ask themselves what will the SCST do with that particular £10m? (half their payday). You do not seem to have any answers. The sponsorship of the kids league is very welcome but easily covered.
Let me enlighten you and other members.
0.15% interest in the Santander is the best they can do so far. About £3-4m of that £10m will probably end up in the pockets of financiers and insurers. I have asked you about an investment plan. Inflation will eat into the remaining £7m redirected money at a rate of £200,000 a year without sensible investments.
None of these thing s mean much to an average member perhaps. Here to help. I realise you will reply within minutes to submerge my post in a pile of text. I may have to start a new thread to make these interesting points more visible.
I think the member are wise enough to change their position. I think most voted for legal action of the basis that Swansea was heading t league 2 and possible administration after the US people had stripped the club and ran away after the parachutes stopped. Here we are in the championship with no debts and a £10m investment pending. Jake Jason and maybe even Steve will show up on January for a league 2 team at the Swansea.com and Winter will tell martin to pick his best 11 against Sutton Utd. |
- Correct.
- impossible, only half of the LOAN (not investment) is from people involved in the case anyway. It will have to be paid via the personal accounts of the people in the case.
- yea, unsure of the relevance though.
- it'll be a very welcome safety net for the future. A tremendous once in a lifetime opportunity to achieve such a safeguard.
- made up figures. Pure guesswork. You keep ignoring this when I mention it, but with just 800k in the coffers, not a lot of that can be properly tied up with the day to day running of the trust. With this windfall, far more can be tied up to achieve a far better rate than their current probably easy access arrangement. So that invalidates your point about inflation. As a man who claims to know finance is anything I've said there far fetched?
- you are the waffler - just like I am now I address your points directly. Unfortunately you rarely repay the courtesy.
- oh, the members are wise now? Didn't you call us 'dimwits' just yesterday? We have a 10mill plus interest debt. The owners should in no way be dictating to Winter of Martin what team to pick. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 22:48 - Nov 15 with 2728 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:57 - Nov 15 by Chief |
- Correct.
- impossible, only half of the LOAN (not investment) is from people involved in the case anyway. It will have to be paid via the personal accounts of the people in the case.
- yea, unsure of the relevance though.
- it'll be a very welcome safety net for the future. A tremendous once in a lifetime opportunity to achieve such a safeguard.
- made up figures. Pure guesswork. You keep ignoring this when I mention it, but with just 800k in the coffers, not a lot of that can be properly tied up with the day to day running of the trust. With this windfall, far more can be tied up to achieve a far better rate than their current probably easy access arrangement. So that invalidates your point about inflation. As a man who claims to know finance is anything I've said there far fetched?
- you are the waffler - just like I am now I address your points directly. Unfortunately you rarely repay the courtesy.
- oh, the members are wise now? Didn't you call us 'dimwits' just yesterday? We have a 10mill plus interest debt. The owners should in no way be dictating to Winter of Martin what team to pick. |
Levein and Silverstein are partners. it makes little difference in reality. The £10m CLN will in my opinion go to pay the SCST instead of being an investment into the club. Useful money being spent turned into a near zero account no use to anyone except Santander PLC. (Bankers).
In my opinion if the SCST go this route their time associated with the football club will end. 'Safeguards' / 'safety net' are meaningless word as no new owner would go anywhere near them. Their strategy is confused they have no investment plan and they move at glacial pace. The sale was over 5 years ago.
The SCST have significant sums and getting an extremely poor return for several years. I was getting 1.15 % on a business account. They could have been bringing in £13,000 per anum for several years 10- times the actual return. These returns are no longer available regrettably. No answer to my point for you as usual. The SCST have no investment plan it seems. They also lost sponsorship in 2016.
Better to leave the money with Winter to buy players and do maintenance while the SCST keep their 21% holding in a developing club.
I stand by my claim that former members have done a poor job at directing their leadership. They by their voting as fighting for he interests of south England based financial firms not their own city not the clubs interests not their own interests. Huge legal case fees and gaining sub inflation interest is serving the existing English status quo. I suspect some members are Labour party members. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Only I highlighted that Burnely was sold for £200m twice the Swansea selling price. This is what Silverstein and co are invested for. They believe in the club. The members apparently do not. A £42m before tax cash pile accumulated in a cooperative manner is a lot better than a forced £14m before tax cash pile earned in court.
Martin himself will want to impress the owners for his own job security. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:36 - Nov 15 with 2718 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 22:48 - Nov 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Levein and Silverstein are partners. it makes little difference in reality. The £10m CLN will in my opinion go to pay the SCST instead of being an investment into the club. Useful money being spent turned into a near zero account no use to anyone except Santander PLC. (Bankers).
In my opinion if the SCST go this route their time associated with the football club will end. 'Safeguards' / 'safety net' are meaningless word as no new owner would go anywhere near them. Their strategy is confused they have no investment plan and they move at glacial pace. The sale was over 5 years ago.
The SCST have significant sums and getting an extremely poor return for several years. I was getting 1.15 % on a business account. They could have been bringing in £13,000 per anum for several years 10- times the actual return. These returns are no longer available regrettably. No answer to my point for you as usual. The SCST have no investment plan it seems. They also lost sponsorship in 2016.
Better to leave the money with Winter to buy players and do maintenance while the SCST keep their 21% holding in a developing club.
I stand by my claim that former members have done a poor job at directing their leadership. They by their voting as fighting for he interests of south England based financial firms not their own city not the clubs interests not their own interests. Huge legal case fees and gaining sub inflation interest is serving the existing English status quo. I suspect some members are Labour party members. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Only I highlighted that Burnely was sold for £200m twice the Swansea selling price. This is what Silverstein and co are invested for. They believe in the club. The members apparently do not. A £42m before tax cash pile accumulated in a cooperative manner is a lot better than a forced £14m before tax cash pile earned in court.
Martin himself will want to impress the owners for his own job security. |
Well in reality it does. Silverstein isn't going to want to pay, he is nothing to do with the action. Partnership or not he's not going to want to pay for mistakes made years before he got involved. And as predicted, you have already ignored my point regarding the bank account!
Why would no new owners go near them? There would be absolutely no better way for a new owner to ingratiate themselves with the fanbase than to involve the trust. How do you know they have no investment plan? Guessing again? More fabrication there - it's actually the whole legal system that's moving at a snails pace.
You're going on about the bank account again - the exact point I addressed in my last post. Which you're ignoring because you know it's an entirely logical and viable point but negates your viewpoint.
I thought the money had been used? Pitch, players, covid etc?
Again fabrications in this next paragraph. You don't know the legal fee costs do you? Plus again, as usual, ignoring the very real possibility of the losers being ordered to pay the legal costs. Convenient for you to forget that?
Burnley - 8 year premier league tenure, own stadium. Move on, enough said.
See this is where you really show yourself up to something other than a fan - it really does look like you have a personal vested interest when you say things like the owners should be picking the team and refuse to acknowledge that this is obviously a bad thing. Any real fan wants no interference in footballing matters from the men who appointed Bob fwking Bradley. But you're different..... | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 01:58 - Nov 16 with 2694 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:36 - Nov 15 by Chief |
Well in reality it does. Silverstein isn't going to want to pay, he is nothing to do with the action. Partnership or not he's not going to want to pay for mistakes made years before he got involved. And as predicted, you have already ignored my point regarding the bank account!
Why would no new owners go near them? There would be absolutely no better way for a new owner to ingratiate themselves with the fanbase than to involve the trust. How do you know they have no investment plan? Guessing again? More fabrication there - it's actually the whole legal system that's moving at a snails pace.
You're going on about the bank account again - the exact point I addressed in my last post. Which you're ignoring because you know it's an entirely logical and viable point but negates your viewpoint.
I thought the money had been used? Pitch, players, covid etc?
Again fabrications in this next paragraph. You don't know the legal fee costs do you? Plus again, as usual, ignoring the very real possibility of the losers being ordered to pay the legal costs. Convenient for you to forget that?
Burnley - 8 year premier league tenure, own stadium. Move on, enough said.
See this is where you really show yourself up to something other than a fan - it really does look like you have a personal vested interest when you say things like the owners should be picking the team and refuse to acknowledge that this is obviously a bad thing. Any real fan wants no interference in footballing matters from the men who appointed Bob fwking Bradley. But you're different..... |
The US people have £10m primed to be invested in the club. It is currently a loan. Winter calls it an investment. The money has been spent. It will be recovered in my opinion if there is a court case and WInter will need to convert it into debt with a long term bank loan. Players will be sold to pay it off. This is he way Swansea do things.
Silverstein's money will most probably be used to buy the SCST shares instead of issuing new shares. This is entirely logical. Club money will indirectly be used to pay the SCST in my opinion.
From what I can see the SCST do not seem ideal business partners for any local or UK Consortium. References from their previous partners are unlikely to be favourable if it ends up in court. They will be seen as litigious and extremely slow moving. Not a great combination. Their board changes a every couple of years. I do not know them and never seen them speak.
I have asked you if there is a business plan and got no response. It is not mentioned in any of their statements. Their account show no investments other than the Santander account. What they will do with the money (apart from giving up to one third away in fees) has not been explained to members like yourself.
I am suggesting if Members want to take than money from the club where it has been usefully spent and invested, the SCST should have at least some idea how they are going to use it as an alternative. Remember the CLN has been used to help a club the SCST are 21% owner in and sharing the benefit.
The loser might pay the legal fees but they will not pay the funders fees which are huge as admitted by the last SCST chairman in his statement. How much do the SCST have to pay if they lose is rarely mentioned.
Martin is his own man and can do what he likes. If I was him i would put on a good show when the big shots come to town. Any worker would do this. Cooper was toast he moment he reacted sniffy to the USA internationals, US 'crocks' of course whereas Gibbs White was 'just a bit unlucky' with his injury. Even Brewster was on his way back from a serious injury
Swansea was 90 minutes away from a Burnley valuation last season. I am a fan with a mind of my own. I do not agree with the SCST going to court. It is a bad idea for them Swansea and the club. They should stay in the club and make 3 times as much when the US people sell. This is a logical opinion. Nothing to suggest a vested interest. I have declared no vested interests.
If the club was in league 2 and the SCST were going to invest on the global markets I would back the policy. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 07:53 - Nov 16 with 2677 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 01:58 - Nov 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The US people have £10m primed to be invested in the club. It is currently a loan. Winter calls it an investment. The money has been spent. It will be recovered in my opinion if there is a court case and WInter will need to convert it into debt with a long term bank loan. Players will be sold to pay it off. This is he way Swansea do things.
Silverstein's money will most probably be used to buy the SCST shares instead of issuing new shares. This is entirely logical. Club money will indirectly be used to pay the SCST in my opinion.
From what I can see the SCST do not seem ideal business partners for any local or UK Consortium. References from their previous partners are unlikely to be favourable if it ends up in court. They will be seen as litigious and extremely slow moving. Not a great combination. Their board changes a every couple of years. I do not know them and never seen them speak.
I have asked you if there is a business plan and got no response. It is not mentioned in any of their statements. Their account show no investments other than the Santander account. What they will do with the money (apart from giving up to one third away in fees) has not been explained to members like yourself.
I am suggesting if Members want to take than money from the club where it has been usefully spent and invested, the SCST should have at least some idea how they are going to use it as an alternative. Remember the CLN has been used to help a club the SCST are 21% owner in and sharing the benefit.
The loser might pay the legal fees but they will not pay the funders fees which are huge as admitted by the last SCST chairman in his statement. How much do the SCST have to pay if they lose is rarely mentioned.
Martin is his own man and can do what he likes. If I was him i would put on a good show when the big shots come to town. Any worker would do this. Cooper was toast he moment he reacted sniffy to the USA internationals, US 'crocks' of course whereas Gibbs White was 'just a bit unlucky' with his injury. Even Brewster was on his way back from a serious injury
Swansea was 90 minutes away from a Burnley valuation last season. I am a fan with a mind of my own. I do not agree with the SCST going to court. It is a bad idea for them Swansea and the club. They should stay in the club and make 3 times as much when the US people sell. This is a logical opinion. Nothing to suggest a vested interest. I have declared no vested interests.
If the club was in league 2 and the SCST were going to invest on the global markets I would back the policy. |
Fine by me, less interest the club has to pay if they take their loan back now.
Don't see why Silverstein would pay for shares he won't legally own. He could have bid the trust's shares by now, probably bought them cheaper and actually then legally own them. So strange to think Silverstein will pay. He's got zero to gain by paying Kaplan & Leveins bills.
Well the Americans themselves are litigious by 1. Letting this case go to court (easily avoided) 2. Taking the local council to court and embarrassingly losing. Any level headed balanced individual will look at the case and see the trust were completely well within their rights to do what they have done and noted all their attempts to avoid court, which along with legal delays accounts for this slow movement.
Ooohh still ignoring what I've said then. Are you just a bot? It's logical to assume the trust will put to the members what the options are when (or if!) The reward is known. To do so prematurely wouldn't be a good move at all. You know already the investment contraints so not sure why you still struggle with the Santander account.
I'm sure the trust know exactly what the plan is. As above. And of courses it's not taking money from the club. That's your spin. The club's bank accounts, the Americans bank accounts = 2 entirely separate entities.
Nonsense, Martin should be completely oblivious as to when the people who appointed Bradley decide to watch a game and pick the team based purely on the merits of the game, squad and fixture list. If the Americans knew anything about football they'd agree. So coming out of a bust Xmas period if we draw a lower league team Martin should rotate. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Ah so Cooper was 'toast'. Hmm wasn't the prevailing narrative that He 'bottled it'? Now you're suggesting he was sacked .....
And yes Morris and Arriola were barely fit. Madness to expect them to be thrown in a successful mid season. Cooper was proved completely correct. Because even with being eased in they both ended up crocked again.
How do you know the Americans will include the trust in any sale then? Whenever that'll be. There's no shareholders agreement with the current owners to provide any safeguards. And of course we know with what low regard these people treat such agreements with anyway. Hence where we find ourselves today.
Haha no you certainly haven't explicitly declared any interest. You don't need to, it clear anyway.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 8:09]
| |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:06 - Nov 16 with 2611 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 07:53 - Nov 16 by Chief |
Fine by me, less interest the club has to pay if they take their loan back now.
Don't see why Silverstein would pay for shares he won't legally own. He could have bid the trust's shares by now, probably bought them cheaper and actually then legally own them. So strange to think Silverstein will pay. He's got zero to gain by paying Kaplan & Leveins bills.
Well the Americans themselves are litigious by 1. Letting this case go to court (easily avoided) 2. Taking the local council to court and embarrassingly losing. Any level headed balanced individual will look at the case and see the trust were completely well within their rights to do what they have done and noted all their attempts to avoid court, which along with legal delays accounts for this slow movement.
Ooohh still ignoring what I've said then. Are you just a bot? It's logical to assume the trust will put to the members what the options are when (or if!) The reward is known. To do so prematurely wouldn't be a good move at all. You know already the investment contraints so not sure why you still struggle with the Santander account.
I'm sure the trust know exactly what the plan is. As above. And of courses it's not taking money from the club. That's your spin. The club's bank accounts, the Americans bank accounts = 2 entirely separate entities.
Nonsense, Martin should be completely oblivious as to when the people who appointed Bradley decide to watch a game and pick the team based purely on the merits of the game, squad and fixture list. If the Americans knew anything about football they'd agree. So coming out of a bust Xmas period if we draw a lower league team Martin should rotate. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Ah so Cooper was 'toast'. Hmm wasn't the prevailing narrative that He 'bottled it'? Now you're suggesting he was sacked .....
And yes Morris and Arriola were barely fit. Madness to expect them to be thrown in a successful mid season. Cooper was proved completely correct. Because even with being eased in they both ended up crocked again.
How do you know the Americans will include the trust in any sale then? Whenever that'll be. There's no shareholders agreement with the current owners to provide any safeguards. And of course we know with what low regard these people treat such agreements with anyway. Hence where we find ourselves today.
Haha no you certainly haven't explicitly declared any interest. You don't need to, it clear anyway.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2021 8:09]
|
Your posts and arguments are very hard to follow. Mine are stand alone.
As I have explained to you if the US people recover their CLN loan to buy the SCST shares the loan will have to be replaced probably at higher rates. Swansea city will pay off the loan by selling players based on precident.
Silverstein will buy the Trust's shares instead of issuing new shares,. He will want them at the same price which he will negotiate I would imagine.
The SCST sued to help the club. The SCST actions will harm the club by indirectly creating debt.
Shareholders are well within their right to sue the other owners. It is however counter productive bad for them and the club. The only winners are third parties from outside the area. Member need to work out why they need to pay outsiders up to £7-8m when they have the option of keeping all their assets and selling at a later date when the team is playing better.
The SCST have shown no ability what so ever in investing and protecting their assets against inflation. Their holding would be halved in real terms over 20 years or so if Inflation is kept at 3%.
A SCST legal win and a £21m payment will in my opinion see the £10m CLN recovered and used to buy half of the SCST shares leaving the club with a £10m debt. This will cause a big problem.
I believe a SCST win in court and departure from the club will be a death sentence for them. They will become a ghost fund declining year on year based on their existing investment record. With no football interest membership will plummet and the public will see them as an irrelevant group of old men sitting on some money.
Martin is wise enough to manage up and manage down. Cooper lacks the 'soft skills' and is a competent but dour character. Martin will want a good performance when the money men are in town. Morris actually made a similar number of appearances as Gibbs White. Both just had bad luck. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:07 - Nov 16 with 2613 views | Catullus |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:21 - Nov 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The US people have no plans to take money out of the club. In fact they have put money in as a loan and want to convert it into shares. There is only one owner that wants to extract cash which will affect the club adversely in my opinion. It is the one you are a member of.
Swansea fans talk about the clubs great Chairman Huw Jenkins with disrespect calling him names like "sellout". He was the architect of the greatest times of the club's history that lasted two decades and deserves huge respect Some claim his legacy has been ruined. I do not accept this.
The OP started whinging about what an unfair world it was that Swansea could not compete wit Bournemouth and Fulham due to not having a parachute. I explained to him that complaining about this once Swansea had spent it' s own parachute is 'whinging'. The best chance was under Potter but he spent the £7m transfer budget he was given badly. I gave a list of players he could have bought at that time including Ivan Toney.
I have raised fundamental questions about Swansea city going forward.
What is better
a) Losing millions in the Premier league paying players £80,000 a week with the minor shareholders being diluted with no profits and no dividends and the majority owners bring in new investors.
or
b) Making small profits every season in the Championship of around £5m and paying out £3m in dividends to keep the Shareholder including the SCST happy with an annual cheque of £630,000 or £50,000+ a month.
You are a member of the SCST and therefore part of the clubs ownership structure. Your body is threatening legal action for cash and to leave the club, They have always had the question of how to make money and not harm the club in some way. It is not possible.
As a member why not consider option b) to persuade you to stay. £11,000 a week. Not bad for doing next to nothing. If it money the SCST want then take it gradually in dividends in agreement with other shareholders.
A club run well in the Championship will make more income that a PL club chasing its tail and losing money with unhappy players beaten almost every week on huge wages.
The US people bought the club for £70m cash (no debt). They can get their money back with a profit in dividends without returning to the PL over 10 years then sell the club with no debt in the championship. The same applies to the SCST in this model with no third party fees.
Being a Swansea city shareholder is a good place to be in my opinion with the current club management. Legal action only makes sense if Swansea is in league 2 with debts. We do a lot of thinking in the shed on the hill in Resolven for you big city dimwits to consider. |
You didn't explain anything, you just laid out your own little fairy tale, again. I'll refrain from calling you any name though because, you know, site rules. Isn' it discriminatory to say someone is dimwitted because they're from a big city? I'm sure dimwits can come from anywhere.
Again you launch into a defence of jenkins which is not what the thread is about. Neither is it whinging that we no longer have parachute payments. You're being too parochial, this is about the bigger picture.
You raised questions about Swansea going forward but they are irrelevant to the thread, they are part of your narrative, you hijack another thread to launch into another fairy tale.
If you want a thread about what you want to talk about then start one. It's very easy, even us big city dimwits manage it. I'm sure you could too, unless you are the village idiot but I wouldn't want to call you that because, y'know, site rules.
PS, I can tell you what is better, don't bring up scenarios that didn't happen and still haven't happened in your lust to attack the trust, again. Stick to the facts of what did actually happen. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:29 - Nov 16 with 2603 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:07 - Nov 16 by Catullus |
You didn't explain anything, you just laid out your own little fairy tale, again. I'll refrain from calling you any name though because, you know, site rules. Isn' it discriminatory to say someone is dimwitted because they're from a big city? I'm sure dimwits can come from anywhere.
Again you launch into a defence of jenkins which is not what the thread is about. Neither is it whinging that we no longer have parachute payments. You're being too parochial, this is about the bigger picture.
You raised questions about Swansea going forward but they are irrelevant to the thread, they are part of your narrative, you hijack another thread to launch into another fairy tale.
If you want a thread about what you want to talk about then start one. It's very easy, even us big city dimwits manage it. I'm sure you could too, unless you are the village idiot but I wouldn't want to call you that because, y'know, site rules.
PS, I can tell you what is better, don't bring up scenarios that didn't happen and still haven't happened in your lust to attack the trust, again. Stick to the facts of what did actually happen. |
You came up with a sob story of how unfair the football world is. I explained to you how well Swansea had done out of it with beautiful infrastructure and permanent jobs for the city.
Swansea had the parachutes. All the profits in 2015 -2016 were available to the 21% owner who failed to sell for whatever reason. Had they sold they could have given their millions away to any good charitable cause of their selection. That sounds pretty fair to me. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 11:30 - Nov 17 with 2515 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:06 - Nov 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Your posts and arguments are very hard to follow. Mine are stand alone.
As I have explained to you if the US people recover their CLN loan to buy the SCST shares the loan will have to be replaced probably at higher rates. Swansea city will pay off the loan by selling players based on precident.
Silverstein will buy the Trust's shares instead of issuing new shares,. He will want them at the same price which he will negotiate I would imagine.
The SCST sued to help the club. The SCST actions will harm the club by indirectly creating debt.
Shareholders are well within their right to sue the other owners. It is however counter productive bad for them and the club. The only winners are third parties from outside the area. Member need to work out why they need to pay outsiders up to £7-8m when they have the option of keeping all their assets and selling at a later date when the team is playing better.
The SCST have shown no ability what so ever in investing and protecting their assets against inflation. Their holding would be halved in real terms over 20 years or so if Inflation is kept at 3%.
A SCST legal win and a £21m payment will in my opinion see the £10m CLN recovered and used to buy half of the SCST shares leaving the club with a £10m debt. This will cause a big problem.
I believe a SCST win in court and departure from the club will be a death sentence for them. They will become a ghost fund declining year on year based on their existing investment record. With no football interest membership will plummet and the public will see them as an irrelevant group of old men sitting on some money.
Martin is wise enough to manage up and manage down. Cooper lacks the 'soft skills' and is a competent but dour character. Martin will want a good performance when the money men are in town. Morris actually made a similar number of appearances as Gibbs White. Both just had bad luck. |
Well feel free to bow out if you're unable to keep up.... 'stand alone' lol. I'm forever highlighting your constant contradictions and fabrications.
Why do you say higher rates? A lot of posters on here said 5% compared to other loans is high, so why do you think this new loan would be higher? Yes well if they don't convert the loan will need to be paid back as it stands anyway. So struggling to see your point.
If Silverstein's going to buy them, whys he bothering lettings the case go to court? It would save all party's money and hassle if he just put in a bid in for them now.
The SCST will be creating no debt for the club. The actions of the Americans is the only thing that can do that.
Again, where are you getting these figures from? And if true as I keep telling you, the Americans have the opportunity the eradicate all potential legal fees. They are the accused, the onus is on them to make right. The victim has made various efforts to remedy the situation.
Again showing your ignorance and completely ignoring what has been told to you. Let's make it simple -
1) you are aware that the trust's opportunities for investing in things is limited don't you?
2) do you agree that having multiple millions in a bank account will garner more interest than an easy access 800k in a bank account?
Well the Americans are 'resourceful, intelligent investors'. Why don't you have faith that they'll fulfill their legal obligations while also maintaining the integrity of their existing assets then?
Again, look back at the investment details in the public sphere. You seem adept at ignoring points that don't back up your agenda. You should be happy then, stop moaning about the trust if they're going to dead soon anyway.
More waffle. The bottom line - no single proper Swansea City wants the men who appointed Bob Bradley to tell Martin what players to pick. End of story. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 11:34 - Nov 17 with 2513 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:29 - Nov 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You came up with a sob story of how unfair the football world is. I explained to you how well Swansea had done out of it with beautiful infrastructure and permanent jobs for the city.
Swansea had the parachutes. All the profits in 2015 -2016 were available to the 21% owner who failed to sell for whatever reason. Had they sold they could have given their millions away to any good charitable cause of their selection. That sounds pretty fair to me. |
21% owner who failed to sell for whatever reason. Had they sold they could have given their millions away to any good charitable cause of their selection. That sounds pretty fair to me"
The Reason being excluded when the other shares in the club were sold (Americans on camera admitting as such).no need to gloss over that Resloven.
Have the sellouts given their money to charitable causes then? [Post edited 17 Nov 2021 11:38]
| |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:58 - Nov 17 with 2448 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:26 - Nov 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I told you why money in football is good not bad. You are a political preacher pontificating at the corrupting influence of cash. This drivel has turned heroic figures like Huw Jenkins into villains. It produced 300 jobs for starters,
I have explained to you that while Abu Dhbi money is on the face of it compromising football competition was actually good for Swansea after selling them £35m of talent in Bony and Sinclair. Swansea turned this cash into state of the art facilities and funded the academy.
Swansea had every chance to get back to the premier league and the owners did their part. Poor players were dispensed with like Clucas, Ki and Amat and replaced with by highly rated young players like McBurne Roberts and James. Furthermore the club gave Potter £7m. You were not whinging how unfair it was then.
I have researched a list of players bought by other clubs that summer 2018 for pennies on sensible wages. Emi Buendia, Andy Yiadom, Jonson Clark Harris, Ben Wilmott, Ryan Fredricks, Ezra Konsa, Sirikli Dembele, Lyle Taylor, Charie Wyke, Adam Armstrong, Ivan Toney, Josh Da Silva.
McCauley came up with Celina, John , Asoro and Mckay. It cost.
. |
Who is McCauley ? |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.