| The Resloven and Chief love in... 11:36 - Nov 13 with 7160 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 19:06 - Nov 17 with 1050 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:58 - Nov 17 by Kilkennyjack |
Who is McCauley ? |
Head Scout under Potter. He took over after Ledbetter was relieved of his duties.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.u
He did a poor job for Swansea. Four signings, none came up to scratch. |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:11 - Nov 17 with 1022 views | BillyChong |
| 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. |
Permanent jobs? What about the redundancy letters a couple of years back? | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:39 - Nov 18 with 987 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:11 - Nov 17 by BillyChong |
Permanent jobs? What about the redundancy letters a couple of years back? |
There are redundancies in most businesses. This is not a business where people are guaranteed a job for life. The letters were letters and there was no certainty it was followed through. Some long standing servants retired.
Chief does not agree but the US owners cash input probably helped secure these jobs. If they are forced to recover their loan by an unnecessary court action (by the fans) then there is no guarantee that Winter will spare the axe on players and staff.
I congratulate Winter for keeping the books straight and keeping local people in work through the pandemic. I believe if the US owners are given another kick in the 'cahones' in court it would be bad news for the club the fans and the city. It does not matter to me who was right or wrong, In my opinion not selling in 2016 could turn out to be a good outcome long term. Burnley was sold for £200m (twice the Swansea selling price).
The SCST appear to have no investment plan. 0.15% p.a. in the Santander is not a plan. It s a gift to bankers. The reward is a free cup of tea and a biscuit. (Scottish shortbread)
In my judgement (thinking in my little shed in Resolven) a win in court will therefore be good for lawyers insurance companies and bankers. Bad for the club and the clubs owners (the ones who actually invest).
The Member need to take charge of their own organisation and work constructively for a return to the Premier league. The SCST interests and that of the US and Welsh owners is the same. The 1000+ good folk and members are effectively in my opinion working for the interests of the South east England financial services and legal businesses on their current trajectory. The narrative of Yankee "hedge fund" asset stripping and impending administration was fake. All the fake prophets use the "hedge fund" word. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 17:50 - Nov 18 with 978 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:39 - Nov 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There are redundancies in most businesses. This is not a business where people are guaranteed a job for life. The letters were letters and there was no certainty it was followed through. Some long standing servants retired.
Chief does not agree but the US owners cash input probably helped secure these jobs. If they are forced to recover their loan by an unnecessary court action (by the fans) then there is no guarantee that Winter will spare the axe on players and staff.
I congratulate Winter for keeping the books straight and keeping local people in work through the pandemic. I believe if the US owners are given another kick in the 'cahones' in court it would be bad news for the club the fans and the city. It does not matter to me who was right or wrong, In my opinion not selling in 2016 could turn out to be a good outcome long term. Burnley was sold for £200m (twice the Swansea selling price).
The SCST appear to have no investment plan. 0.15% p.a. in the Santander is not a plan. It s a gift to bankers. The reward is a free cup of tea and a biscuit. (Scottish shortbread)
In my judgement (thinking in my little shed in Resolven) a win in court will therefore be good for lawyers insurance companies and bankers. Bad for the club and the clubs owners (the ones who actually invest).
The Member need to take charge of their own organisation and work constructively for a return to the Premier league. The SCST interests and that of the US and Welsh owners is the same. The 1000+ good folk and members are effectively in my opinion working for the interests of the South east England financial services and legal businesses on their current trajectory. The narrative of Yankee "hedge fund" asset stripping and impending administration was fake. All the fake prophets use the "hedge fund" word. |
Secure what jobs? These redundancies were well before the loan.
No one's 'forcing' them to recover their loan. They may CHOOSE to repay half their loan though and forego some interest they would be owed if they were to keep it in longer. that is very different to being forced into something. This is simple vocabulary.
Thought we weren't in debt according to Winter? Whys he suddenly going to start sacking staff?
Burnley are in the premier league and have been for 8 and own their stadium. Why don't you have more faith in the Americans? Why do you think that they'll be unable to properly run the ckub following this kick potential 'kick in the cahones' then?
Deliberately ignoring my point on this then? Shall we try again?
1) You do know trust's have quite strict regulations on what they can invest in don't you?
2) Do you think that an account containing multiple millions of pounds that can be tied up for fairly lengthy period garner a fair amount of interest? Certainly compared to a fast access account with 800k in?
Come on, these aren't difficult.... Why are you do reluctant to answer?
Well as I keep telling you in response to this copy and paste - tell your American friends to get around the table and avoid the need for court and lawyers. It is due to their lack of due diligence when buying their shares that has resulted in both sides having to get legal representation. So blame them.
The trust as you've noted when it suits you are working well with staff undertakings the day to day running of the club.
Weren't you the other day saying that the Americans would do just that - asset strip the club to pay their own personal legal fees?
Try to address these points instead of the copy and paste generic waffle this time. |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:03 - Nov 18 with 974 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 17:50 - Nov 18 by Chief |
Secure what jobs? These redundancies were well before the loan.
No one's 'forcing' them to recover their loan. They may CHOOSE to repay half their loan though and forego some interest they would be owed if they were to keep it in longer. that is very different to being forced into something. This is simple vocabulary.
Thought we weren't in debt according to Winter? Whys he suddenly going to start sacking staff?
Burnley are in the premier league and have been for 8 and own their stadium. Why don't you have more faith in the Americans? Why do you think that they'll be unable to properly run the ckub following this kick potential 'kick in the cahones' then?
Deliberately ignoring my point on this then? Shall we try again?
1) You do know trust's have quite strict regulations on what they can invest in don't you?
2) Do you think that an account containing multiple millions of pounds that can be tied up for fairly lengthy period garner a fair amount of interest? Certainly compared to a fast access account with 800k in?
Come on, these aren't difficult.... Why are you do reluctant to answer?
Well as I keep telling you in response to this copy and paste - tell your American friends to get around the table and avoid the need for court and lawyers. It is due to their lack of due diligence when buying their shares that has resulted in both sides having to get legal representation. So blame them.
The trust as you've noted when it suits you are working well with staff undertakings the day to day running of the club.
Weren't you the other day saying that the Americans would do just that - asset strip the club to pay their own personal legal fees?
Try to address these points instead of the copy and paste generic waffle this time. |
Bit slow off the mark today. Were you off duty? | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:05 - Nov 18 with 969 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:03 - Nov 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Bit slow off the mark today. Were you off duty? |
Got round to it eventually.
No reply to points I made again then? | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:02 - Nov 18 with 950 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:05 - Nov 18 by Chief |
Got round to it eventually.
No reply to points I made again then? |
I reply to your points if you are courteous.
You said in brackets:-
[ Deliberately ignoring my point on this then? Shall we try again?
1) You do know trust's have quite strict regulations on what they can invest in don't you?
2) Do you think that an account containing multiple millions of pounds that can be tied up for fairly lengthy period garner a fair amount of interest? Certainly compared to a fast access account with 800k in? ]
If the SCST cannot invest such that their investment yield significantly more than inflation they should give up and do something else. They need a return of at least 5%. This is the number one important factor in going to court and cashing in for members to consider. They also need to consider if the club will allow them to reinvest back in Swansea city the future. If they cannot they will simply be creating profits for bankers and stagnating for decades. Grim old farmer economics.
When I go to my business bank the rates are appalling and all sub inflation. You will not a get 1% for tying it up. 0.8% is a maximum for 3 years for even large sums. Inflation hit 4% today.
I call on members to ask proper question of their leadership like how can they invest very big sums of money. The leadership needs to know their investment potential and have a plan, surely? What is it?
Assume they get 0.8%. Inflation is 4%. Stagnation is therefore at a rate of MINUS 3.2%. Football inflation is more than this. They need a 4% return simply to preserve the value of their holding. The Burnley valuation was a game changer in my view. US owners liked the cut of that deal.
3.2% of £14m is £448,000 per arum or £8,600 a week £37,333 per month. Is any of this sinking in?
I doubt members even thought about this before the vote.
Court action success will probably see the £10m CLN recovered and the debt given to Winter to fill.
A simple question for members.
Is the £10m better a) or b)?
a) Given to Winter to spend on players and maintenance and preserving local jobs. (the recruitment at least seems to know what it is doing Piroe, Downes Ntcham (Obafemi was not so cheap with out issues)
b) Sitting in the Santander LOSING 3.2% against inflation every year.
21% of any future Piroe transfer fee if paid in a special dividend is owned by the SCST.
My recommendation is 5% holding in the club. 10% cash and 90% in global funds and assets (if allowed). Why not try to get a discount in fees from Kaplan in Oaktree financial services. They have billions $ in funds. Business is business. Avoid confrontation and lawyers at all cost and take financial advice.
We believe in networking here in Resolven. Got a nice little discount on a chainsaw the other day. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:58 - Nov 18 with 945 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:02 - Nov 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I reply to your points if you are courteous.
You said in brackets:-
[ Deliberately ignoring my point on this then? Shall we try again?
1) You do know trust's have quite strict regulations on what they can invest in don't you?
2) Do you think that an account containing multiple millions of pounds that can be tied up for fairly lengthy period garner a fair amount of interest? Certainly compared to a fast access account with 800k in? ]
If the SCST cannot invest such that their investment yield significantly more than inflation they should give up and do something else. They need a return of at least 5%. This is the number one important factor in going to court and cashing in for members to consider. They also need to consider if the club will allow them to reinvest back in Swansea city the future. If they cannot they will simply be creating profits for bankers and stagnating for decades. Grim old farmer economics.
When I go to my business bank the rates are appalling and all sub inflation. You will not a get 1% for tying it up. 0.8% is a maximum for 3 years for even large sums. Inflation hit 4% today.
I call on members to ask proper question of their leadership like how can they invest very big sums of money. The leadership needs to know their investment potential and have a plan, surely? What is it?
Assume they get 0.8%. Inflation is 4%. Stagnation is therefore at a rate of MINUS 3.2%. Football inflation is more than this. They need a 4% return simply to preserve the value of their holding. The Burnley valuation was a game changer in my view. US owners liked the cut of that deal.
3.2% of £14m is £448,000 per arum or £8,600 a week £37,333 per month. Is any of this sinking in?
I doubt members even thought about this before the vote.
Court action success will probably see the £10m CLN recovered and the debt given to Winter to fill.
A simple question for members.
Is the £10m better a) or b)?
a) Given to Winter to spend on players and maintenance and preserving local jobs. (the recruitment at least seems to know what it is doing Piroe, Downes Ntcham (Obafemi was not so cheap with out issues)
b) Sitting in the Santander LOSING 3.2% against inflation every year.
21% of any future Piroe transfer fee if paid in a special dividend is owned by the SCST.
My recommendation is 5% holding in the club. 10% cash and 90% in global funds and assets (if allowed). Why not try to get a discount in fees from Kaplan in Oaktree financial services. They have billions $ in funds. Business is business. Avoid confrontation and lawyers at all cost and take financial advice.
We believe in networking here in Resolven. Got a nice little discount on a chainsaw the other day. |
Not really they're going to have a large amount in the event of a win. The interest on that will be significant and even if it wasn't you're making it out that it'll diminish to nothing in a few years. Which simply isn't true. It's impossible to predict whether a shareholder in future would be willing to sell their shares to the trust. Circumstances change, the owners of the shares will change.
As above, and of course you're assuming the inflation rate remains as it is.
If you became a member you'd be able to ask these questions yourself - although they've all been answered repeatedly. Is it wise for the trust to publically publish their plan before 1) knowing the reward (if any) and 2) putting it to the members? I've asked this before several times but you do your usual trick of ignoring it.
Burnley are a premier league side of 8 seasons plus and own their stadium.
But the value of the holding (and it's going to be a long term holding in reality) isn't actually going to diminish. Who knows what inflation will be in years to come, and who knows what the club's shares will be worth in years to come. Or what the asking price will be. Or indeed what the interest rates will be.
Again, Silverstein isn't involved so why is he taking his loan out? I thought you said he wanted to become a shareholder? He's not going to achieve that by taking his loan back. What debt? Winter said we weren't in debt.
But that's a made up scenario. The actual scenario will be:
1) 21mill pound in the care of the club's supporters trust.
2) 21mill pound in the pockets of the Americans.
I know which one I and all normal supporters of the club would choose.
You're recommendation is fantasy. Or perhaps suggest it to the Americans. They are the only people with the power to enact that masterplan. Funny that the Americans don't follow your non confrontation plan, having already taken the local council to court.
I'm sure you do, sadly this mantra isn't reflected by the American shareholders. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:26 - Nov 18 with 927 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:58 - Nov 18 by Chief |
Not really they're going to have a large amount in the event of a win. The interest on that will be significant and even if it wasn't you're making it out that it'll diminish to nothing in a few years. Which simply isn't true. It's impossible to predict whether a shareholder in future would be willing to sell their shares to the trust. Circumstances change, the owners of the shares will change.
As above, and of course you're assuming the inflation rate remains as it is.
If you became a member you'd be able to ask these questions yourself - although they've all been answered repeatedly. Is it wise for the trust to publically publish their plan before 1) knowing the reward (if any) and 2) putting it to the members? I've asked this before several times but you do your usual trick of ignoring it.
Burnley are a premier league side of 8 seasons plus and own their stadium.
But the value of the holding (and it's going to be a long term holding in reality) isn't actually going to diminish. Who knows what inflation will be in years to come, and who knows what the club's shares will be worth in years to come. Or what the asking price will be. Or indeed what the interest rates will be.
Again, Silverstein isn't involved so why is he taking his loan out? I thought you said he wanted to become a shareholder? He's not going to achieve that by taking his loan back. What debt? Winter said we weren't in debt.
But that's a made up scenario. The actual scenario will be:
1) 21mill pound in the care of the club's supporters trust.
2) 21mill pound in the pockets of the Americans.
I know which one I and all normal supporters of the club would choose.
You're recommendation is fantasy. Or perhaps suggest it to the Americans. They are the only people with the power to enact that masterplan. Funny that the Americans don't follow your non confrontation plan, having already taken the local council to court.
I'm sure you do, sadly this mantra isn't reflected by the American shareholders. |
I am a fan of Swansea city an no intention of being a member unless I see a sensible strategy with a business plan and proof that their actions will not harm the club. I do not see any of this. To me a body with heavily restricted investment possibilities is no use to any one long term.
Here is my logic. A hypothetical assessment of likely outcomes.
Taking £21m off the current ownership to buy overpriced shares and arguing it will not affect the club is for the fairies. It may even cost local jobs, lead to the sale of players prematurely, and could cause a rise in season ticket prices . Can they prove otherwise? If it a bluff it is a huge waste of time and the SCST s money.
I believe if the court case goes ahead in my estimation the convertible loan note will probably be withdrawn to cover half of any legal settlement. This seems reasonable to me and may be a reason why the investment has not been closed. The owners have back door plan B if they need money to pay the SCST.
You are is serious difficulty with the maths and your understanding of the scenario. £21m is off the table due to the high costs. It will be less than £15m for sure based on precedent. Up to £7m will go to funders and insurers. Tax who knows? You do not understand that the 'no debt' statement was based on the loan being converted not recovered. If it is recovered the debt carried by the club is £10m or so. It all seems too much for you to understand which makes one wonder the trouble some members might be having.
Silverstein will withdraw his investment and use it to buy the SCST s shares instead at current market prices. (assumed £5m)
My fag packet numbers. Based on a club valuation of £50m.
£21m debt.
Silverstein will get his % at the same price as the loan plus the interest on the loan to that date. His £5m will give him 10% of the club (5% at 2016 relative valuations) . Levein and his group plus other shareholders will purchase the other 11% for the current market value of around £5.5m. (fresh money) That is £10.5m.
The overall shortfall to the US and remaining Welsh shareholders is £10.5m. (£21m - £10.5m) Levien and co will recover their £5m from the CLN plus interest, leaving £5.5m.
They will cover this with a 'Piroe special dividend' sacking some local employees and hiking season ticket prices for 5 up to seasons. £50- £100 extra will bring in £500,000 - £1m per year. Why not?
The US people will not lose much sleep over this and put the blame for player sales season ticket hikes and job redundancies squarely on the "recent legal case loss costs". They tried to do business with the local people people but found they could not do business with them.
It is not ideal but business is business. The main burden will be on Mr Winter to balance the books and pay off the new £10m debt he did not budget for. The 'Yankees' will also be wanting their £5.5m special dividend. "Joel, Not you Lati !, Mr Winter wants to have a word with you. Can you stop the bench pressing and pop upstairs .......Now. Yes the kit is fine. ".
You have to remember the CLN money £5m from Silverstein and £5m (assumed from press reports) from the Levien group was already written off if converted. They would only notionally recover it when selling the club.
You are in the wrong business if you can find no risk investments for more than 1% these days.
I am not an accountant and the SCST in a current inflation environment will not diminish to zero. It will roughly halve in 20 years in real terms. They will be irrelevant by then. It seems a long time but the sale was 5+ years ago. The cheapest football team in the PL in 2016 was worth £100m. Burnley was the cheapest club last season sold for £200m. Doubled in 4 years. That was an eye opener.
Swansea were 90 min from the land of milk and honey last season and might be challenging again this season.
Going to court to get 65% of a PL team bought at half price looks like bad business to me if there is a decent chance of getting back. If the club was struggling in league 2 it would make sense. That scenario might have made sense to traditionally pessimistic Swansea fans at the time of the votes. It has not happened and it is not likely either in my opinion. [Post edited 19 Nov 2021 2:50]
| |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 02:36 - Nov 19 with 903 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:26 - Nov 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am a fan of Swansea city an no intention of being a member unless I see a sensible strategy with a business plan and proof that their actions will not harm the club. I do not see any of this. To me a body with heavily restricted investment possibilities is no use to any one long term.
Here is my logic. A hypothetical assessment of likely outcomes.
Taking £21m off the current ownership to buy overpriced shares and arguing it will not affect the club is for the fairies. It may even cost local jobs, lead to the sale of players prematurely, and could cause a rise in season ticket prices . Can they prove otherwise? If it a bluff it is a huge waste of time and the SCST s money.
I believe if the court case goes ahead in my estimation the convertible loan note will probably be withdrawn to cover half of any legal settlement. This seems reasonable to me and may be a reason why the investment has not been closed. The owners have back door plan B if they need money to pay the SCST.
You are is serious difficulty with the maths and your understanding of the scenario. £21m is off the table due to the high costs. It will be less than £15m for sure based on precedent. Up to £7m will go to funders and insurers. Tax who knows? You do not understand that the 'no debt' statement was based on the loan being converted not recovered. If it is recovered the debt carried by the club is £10m or so. It all seems too much for you to understand which makes one wonder the trouble some members might be having.
Silverstein will withdraw his investment and use it to buy the SCST s shares instead at current market prices. (assumed £5m)
My fag packet numbers. Based on a club valuation of £50m.
£21m debt.
Silverstein will get his % at the same price as the loan plus the interest on the loan to that date. His £5m will give him 10% of the club (5% at 2016 relative valuations) . Levein and his group plus other shareholders will purchase the other 11% for the current market value of around £5.5m. (fresh money) That is £10.5m.
The overall shortfall to the US and remaining Welsh shareholders is £10.5m. (£21m - £10.5m) Levien and co will recover their £5m from the CLN plus interest, leaving £5.5m.
They will cover this with a 'Piroe special dividend' sacking some local employees and hiking season ticket prices for 5 up to seasons. £50- £100 extra will bring in £500,000 - £1m per year. Why not?
The US people will not lose much sleep over this and put the blame for player sales season ticket hikes and job redundancies squarely on the "recent legal case loss costs". They tried to do business with the local people people but found they could not do business with them.
It is not ideal but business is business. The main burden will be on Mr Winter to balance the books and pay off the new £10m debt he did not budget for. The 'Yankees' will also be wanting their £5.5m special dividend. "Joel, Not you Lati !, Mr Winter wants to have a word with you. Can you stop the bench pressing and pop upstairs .......Now. Yes the kit is fine. ".
You have to remember the CLN money £5m from Silverstein and £5m (assumed from press reports) from the Levien group was already written off if converted. They would only notionally recover it when selling the club.
You are in the wrong business if you can find no risk investments for more than 1% these days.
I am not an accountant and the SCST in a current inflation environment will not diminish to zero. It will roughly halve in 20 years in real terms. They will be irrelevant by then. It seems a long time but the sale was 5+ years ago. The cheapest football team in the PL in 2016 was worth £100m. Burnley was the cheapest club last season sold for £200m. Doubled in 4 years. That was an eye opener.
Swansea were 90 min from the land of milk and honey last season and might be challenging again this season.
Going to court to get 65% of a PL team bought at half price looks like bad business to me if there is a decent chance of getting back. If the club was struggling in league 2 it would make sense. That scenario might have made sense to traditionally pessimistic Swansea fans at the time of the votes. It has not happened and it is not likely either in my opinion. [Post edited 19 Nov 2021 2:50]
|
Oh well don't moan when they act in a way you disagree with then. You're like a member of the public who about a government but can't be bothered to go and vote.
Can you prove it will happen? You're the one making the accusation, quite a serious one, that the owners are going to knowingly and deliberately plunge the club into serious jeopardy?
It can't be reasonable to anyone because the Maths do not add up. The loan from the owners as far as we know us roughly 5mill. That won't cover half the potential 21 mill. You're saying things as certainties again, are you still.going to claim no inside knowledge? The owners HAVE a backdoor plan B. Well what's plan A? Have they announced it? If not, why not? You keep asking about the trust's finances what about some transparency from the accused?
Again you're making things up. What maths have I got wrong? How do you how high costs are and why do you automatically assume the winner will have to pay costs? I've asked you for previous examples of where such a precedent was set, but didn't supply any. I'm just taking Winter's words at face value. He didn't clarify his statement by mentioning anything about conversion. He was talking about the present, not some unspecified time in the future. So you must also think that Winter doesn't understand either then? Him being the one who actually said it?
So Silverstein is going to take out his loan and use to but shares off the Americans who've just been forced to buy them for the premier league price? So the current owners are going to suddenly sell some of their newly acquired shares at an immediate loss!? You sure?
Where's the club managed to get 21mill of debt from? Winter recently said we were debt free.
See my comments above on the Silverstein thing. Makes no sense. If he still wants shares he'd leave his loan in and convert. There are other shareholders to dilute you know .....
How is Levein going to buy more shares at the current market value? Off who? Jenkins or Morgan? This is a new development. Where did you hear this?
Why not? Because it'll be counter productive. When the chief executive is saying the club is not in debt, but are sacking staff and selling players without reinvesting the money, the fans aren't going to stand to paying extra for their season tickets. So they won't make any extra back at all. Because take up will drop off drastically. The 'Piroe special dividend' policy will see us in league 1 sharpish. Which you'll surely agree means it'll be even more difficult for the Americans to get their money back, let alone their initial outlay when buying the club.
They won't be able to blame the court case because the proceeds can't legally to be paid from the club's accounts. So that's a complete scaremongering falsehood. Again I don't know why you don't have faith in the Americans to be more legally aware. It's actually the other way around, the trust tried to do business on many occasions, but the Americans didn't want to go through mediation, offered inferior terms, changed terms, withdrew terms. It's been a glass case example from the Americans of how not to do business and work with a fellow shareholder to find a solution. They still have time and opportunity to mind, but I'm not holding my breath. The trust's stance is they'll still be open to negotiation. It's from the American side that it isn't currently forthcoming.
Why haven't the Americans themselves budgeted for this then? So they wouldn't have to inflict hardship upon and sabotage their own holding? Surely being the savvy businessmen they are they foresaw the possibility of this occurring when they bought the club? Why didn't their legal counsel advise then? Did they misrepresent this proposition to Mindy and the other consortium members? Did the sellouts sell under false premises? If they did, and from the information we've got the Americans claim this to be the case, why wouldn't they sue for these 'unforeseen costs'?
Business is business for the trust too......
As i say, if they pillage the team and fill it with Latibeaudiere standard players, they won't get their money back when we're in league 1.
And they'd take it back plus 5% interest if not converted.....
Well they're onto a winner then because they're getting 5% for their zero risk loan. They're better off not converting. The perfect scam.
We aren't in the premier league and are further away now than we have been since relegation. Let alone staying there for 8 seasons and owning the ground like Burnley.
It was you that said no mark up.of that magnitude is ever a 'bad deal'. Unfortunately you're constant web of contradictions are coming back to trip you up again.
None of that monologue was anything new. Yet another copy and paste. Don't you get bored of that? Wouldn't it be better if you actually address what I state instead of blandly waffling on if as you're too scared to properly engage? I think you can be better than this. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:59 - Nov 19 with 846 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 02:36 - Nov 19 by Chief |
Oh well don't moan when they act in a way you disagree with then. You're like a member of the public who about a government but can't be bothered to go and vote.
Can you prove it will happen? You're the one making the accusation, quite a serious one, that the owners are going to knowingly and deliberately plunge the club into serious jeopardy?
It can't be reasonable to anyone because the Maths do not add up. The loan from the owners as far as we know us roughly 5mill. That won't cover half the potential 21 mill. You're saying things as certainties again, are you still.going to claim no inside knowledge? The owners HAVE a backdoor plan B. Well what's plan A? Have they announced it? If not, why not? You keep asking about the trust's finances what about some transparency from the accused?
Again you're making things up. What maths have I got wrong? How do you how high costs are and why do you automatically assume the winner will have to pay costs? I've asked you for previous examples of where such a precedent was set, but didn't supply any. I'm just taking Winter's words at face value. He didn't clarify his statement by mentioning anything about conversion. He was talking about the present, not some unspecified time in the future. So you must also think that Winter doesn't understand either then? Him being the one who actually said it?
So Silverstein is going to take out his loan and use to but shares off the Americans who've just been forced to buy them for the premier league price? So the current owners are going to suddenly sell some of their newly acquired shares at an immediate loss!? You sure?
Where's the club managed to get 21mill of debt from? Winter recently said we were debt free.
See my comments above on the Silverstein thing. Makes no sense. If he still wants shares he'd leave his loan in and convert. There are other shareholders to dilute you know .....
How is Levein going to buy more shares at the current market value? Off who? Jenkins or Morgan? This is a new development. Where did you hear this?
Why not? Because it'll be counter productive. When the chief executive is saying the club is not in debt, but are sacking staff and selling players without reinvesting the money, the fans aren't going to stand to paying extra for their season tickets. So they won't make any extra back at all. Because take up will drop off drastically. The 'Piroe special dividend' policy will see us in league 1 sharpish. Which you'll surely agree means it'll be even more difficult for the Americans to get their money back, let alone their initial outlay when buying the club.
They won't be able to blame the court case because the proceeds can't legally to be paid from the club's accounts. So that's a complete scaremongering falsehood. Again I don't know why you don't have faith in the Americans to be more legally aware. It's actually the other way around, the trust tried to do business on many occasions, but the Americans didn't want to go through mediation, offered inferior terms, changed terms, withdrew terms. It's been a glass case example from the Americans of how not to do business and work with a fellow shareholder to find a solution. They still have time and opportunity to mind, but I'm not holding my breath. The trust's stance is they'll still be open to negotiation. It's from the American side that it isn't currently forthcoming.
Why haven't the Americans themselves budgeted for this then? So they wouldn't have to inflict hardship upon and sabotage their own holding? Surely being the savvy businessmen they are they foresaw the possibility of this occurring when they bought the club? Why didn't their legal counsel advise then? Did they misrepresent this proposition to Mindy and the other consortium members? Did the sellouts sell under false premises? If they did, and from the information we've got the Americans claim this to be the case, why wouldn't they sue for these 'unforeseen costs'?
Business is business for the trust too......
As i say, if they pillage the team and fill it with Latibeaudiere standard players, they won't get their money back when we're in league 1.
And they'd take it back plus 5% interest if not converted.....
Well they're onto a winner then because they're getting 5% for their zero risk loan. They're better off not converting. The perfect scam.
We aren't in the premier league and are further away now than we have been since relegation. Let alone staying there for 8 seasons and owning the ground like Burnley.
It was you that said no mark up.of that magnitude is ever a 'bad deal'. Unfortunately you're constant web of contradictions are coming back to trip you up again.
None of that monologue was anything new. Yet another copy and paste. Don't you get bored of that? Wouldn't it be better if you actually address what I state instead of blandly waffling on if as you're too scared to properly engage? I think you can be better than this. |
I can only go on statements and press reports. WoL Mitchelmore states it is £10m not £5m. I can provide you the press report on request.
i have given what i regard a likely outcome. I cannot prove anything and it is not an accusation. The US people can run their business with their colleagues as they see fit. Remember Swansea under their leadership currently has no debt. The minor shareholders should if they were experienced investors be grateful to them. If they we minor shareholders at Derby they would be left penniless.
The club will not be in great jeopardy but will have to sell a player prematurely and increase season ticket prices and possibly even trim the staff. Its called decisive management.
Here my my theory.
Plan A is to invest the money reported as £10m (not £5m) into buying newly issued shares within the next 4 and half years. The money has already been spent but now the stadium is painted, the pitch relaid and Ayew has gone and fans are back. The club could make a profit. Minor shareholders will be diluted.
Plan B is to cover a potential legal action. The £10m instead of going to Winter to spend will go the the SCST in a legal settlement to protect the interests of the 28 investors. Winter will need to find a short term loan to take him to the transfer widow. To reduce the need to sell players the club could increase season tickets and cut jobs as an alternative. The club will not be put at risk. The club will have s a short term debt of £10m and a long term debt to the owners (notional of £5m or so if the CLN is discounted).
If the intention is to harm the owners it will not. They have the ability to bring in new investors and ease the pain.
The funding costs to the SCST are only payable by the SCST no one else as I understand it. Court costs applied to the loser by the Judge are separate. You will get to understand this eventually. The problem is the SCST do not have enough cash to pay for the case so have to go for a no win no fee option or some form of hybrid.
The SCST leadership at the time said the "had no option" presumably because they felt the club was heading to league 2. It was a dud prognosis. They have plenty of better options. the World has changed over 5 and half years.
You understanding is poor. If the club was debt free before the CLN why would he take the CLN? He stated it was to help the club through Covid. (i.e. debts) He calls it an investment and he stated he as sure SIlverstein would convert. He has a place on the board. I believe has agreed to buy SCST shares for the same price instead of buying new shares if the Court case is lost. That is £5m off the bill. This is just my theory as a outsider looking in.
You maths is wrong because you are forgetting about the funders fees and tax. Any win will be far less than £21m because they cannot fund the case. My guess is £14m.
The Levien group will be forced to buy the shares at double the existing price. This is painful to them and was organised by the fans who gave one third of the claim to third parties in costs which really 'takes the biscuit'. More hard medicine I suspect and the fans will not be spared. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:46 - Nov 19 with 836 views | jackrabbit |
| 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. |
Good post. Some very good points made. |  | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 17:59 - Nov 19 with 828 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:59 - Nov 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I can only go on statements and press reports. WoL Mitchelmore states it is £10m not £5m. I can provide you the press report on request.
i have given what i regard a likely outcome. I cannot prove anything and it is not an accusation. The US people can run their business with their colleagues as they see fit. Remember Swansea under their leadership currently has no debt. The minor shareholders should if they were experienced investors be grateful to them. If they we minor shareholders at Derby they would be left penniless.
The club will not be in great jeopardy but will have to sell a player prematurely and increase season ticket prices and possibly even trim the staff. Its called decisive management.
Here my my theory.
Plan A is to invest the money reported as £10m (not £5m) into buying newly issued shares within the next 4 and half years. The money has already been spent but now the stadium is painted, the pitch relaid and Ayew has gone and fans are back. The club could make a profit. Minor shareholders will be diluted.
Plan B is to cover a potential legal action. The £10m instead of going to Winter to spend will go the the SCST in a legal settlement to protect the interests of the 28 investors. Winter will need to find a short term loan to take him to the transfer widow. To reduce the need to sell players the club could increase season tickets and cut jobs as an alternative. The club will not be put at risk. The club will have s a short term debt of £10m and a long term debt to the owners (notional of £5m or so if the CLN is discounted).
If the intention is to harm the owners it will not. They have the ability to bring in new investors and ease the pain.
The funding costs to the SCST are only payable by the SCST no one else as I understand it. Court costs applied to the loser by the Judge are separate. You will get to understand this eventually. The problem is the SCST do not have enough cash to pay for the case so have to go for a no win no fee option or some form of hybrid.
The SCST leadership at the time said the "had no option" presumably because they felt the club was heading to league 2. It was a dud prognosis. They have plenty of better options. the World has changed over 5 and half years.
You understanding is poor. If the club was debt free before the CLN why would he take the CLN? He stated it was to help the club through Covid. (i.e. debts) He calls it an investment and he stated he as sure SIlverstein would convert. He has a place on the board. I believe has agreed to buy SCST shares for the same price instead of buying new shares if the Court case is lost. That is £5m off the bill. This is just my theory as a outsider looking in.
You maths is wrong because you are forgetting about the funders fees and tax. Any win will be far less than £21m because they cannot fund the case. My guess is £14m.
The Levien group will be forced to buy the shares at double the existing price. This is painful to them and was organised by the fans who gave one third of the claim to third parties in costs which really 'takes the biscuit'. More hard medicine I suspect and the fans will not be spared. |
Read what I wrote again - the loan from the owners was only £5m not £10m. No need for press reports. That's well known. You are fully aware of it too.
Good admission there that you are actually making this all up. Well if Derby's minor shareholders were excluded from a sale it would be a idea for them to take steps too. But the circumstances aren't comparable anyway.
The next part is a complete copy and paste. Do I have to copy and my paste my response to that bit from my last post seeing as you've completely ignored it?
Not another theory....
Plan A is still entirely feasible. As I've stated already, there are still minor shareholders to dilute even if the trust do sell all their shares. Presumably Silverstein would favour this option.
Plan B you've said the 10mill has already been spent and as it stands will need to be paid back anyway. So moot point. The club will not be put at risk. Hmm you're starting to change your tune and realise what I've been saying then. At last.
Great, well I hope they've got these investors lined up. That's a far better option than deliberately handicapping the football and their own investment.
Yea I fully understand it, the losers could have the pay the winners fees. The trust may have borrowed some to pay for the fees, but in the event of a win, the fees will be repaid (in event of a trust win).
I agree there are other options. But none of those will gain the trust anything like what they stand to gain from the case any time soon, if ever. Buyer and Higj price sorted.
Understanding of what is poor? Well there are theories, the league were offering interest free loans. But the owners decided on themselves lending the club money (and their mate) from which they'd gain interest. I don't know, was it debt free? Yes I'm aware what Silverstein said. What's your point? You believe he's agreed to buy the trust's shares? Where have you heard that? Why would he want to buy championship shares at premier league prices?
My maths isn't wrong because I haven't provided any calculations. Merely stated yours are skewed and without evidence of precedent. Tax is tax. It was a factor for the sellouts and will remain to be when the club's sold in future.
Well they should have thought of that when they bought in. To knowingly ignore or be blissfully unaware of the trust and the shareholders agreement when buying us frankly ridiculous. But as I say sellouts might have done a good job of hiding it. Therefore I'd be pretty nervous if i was one of them. It will be painful for the Americans to know they'll have been sold the club under the (potentially) false pretence that they could buy just the sellouts shares. Certainly explains the efforts to invalidate the shareholders agreement don't you think?
Hard medicine for the fans is also hard medicine for their initial investment. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:18 - Nov 19 with 824 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 17:59 - Nov 19 by Chief |
Read what I wrote again - the loan from the owners was only £5m not £10m. No need for press reports. That's well known. You are fully aware of it too.
Good admission there that you are actually making this all up. Well if Derby's minor shareholders were excluded from a sale it would be a idea for them to take steps too. But the circumstances aren't comparable anyway.
The next part is a complete copy and paste. Do I have to copy and my paste my response to that bit from my last post seeing as you've completely ignored it?
Not another theory....
Plan A is still entirely feasible. As I've stated already, there are still minor shareholders to dilute even if the trust do sell all their shares. Presumably Silverstein would favour this option.
Plan B you've said the 10mill has already been spent and as it stands will need to be paid back anyway. So moot point. The club will not be put at risk. Hmm you're starting to change your tune and realise what I've been saying then. At last.
Great, well I hope they've got these investors lined up. That's a far better option than deliberately handicapping the football and their own investment.
Yea I fully understand it, the losers could have the pay the winners fees. The trust may have borrowed some to pay for the fees, but in the event of a win, the fees will be repaid (in event of a trust win).
I agree there are other options. But none of those will gain the trust anything like what they stand to gain from the case any time soon, if ever. Buyer and Higj price sorted.
Understanding of what is poor? Well there are theories, the league were offering interest free loans. But the owners decided on themselves lending the club money (and their mate) from which they'd gain interest. I don't know, was it debt free? Yes I'm aware what Silverstein said. What's your point? You believe he's agreed to buy the trust's shares? Where have you heard that? Why would he want to buy championship shares at premier league prices?
My maths isn't wrong because I haven't provided any calculations. Merely stated yours are skewed and without evidence of precedent. Tax is tax. It was a factor for the sellouts and will remain to be when the club's sold in future.
Well they should have thought of that when they bought in. To knowingly ignore or be blissfully unaware of the trust and the shareholders agreement when buying us frankly ridiculous. But as I say sellouts might have done a good job of hiding it. Therefore I'd be pretty nervous if i was one of them. It will be painful for the Americans to know they'll have been sold the club under the (potentially) false pretence that they could buy just the sellouts shares. Certainly explains the efforts to invalidate the shareholders agreement don't you think?
Hard medicine for the fans is also hard medicine for their initial investment. |
Come on now why would he want to put himself through reading all that again
1 Its a load of Bollocks
2 It goes on for ever, typical example of your Napoleon syndrome taking over again.  | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:06 - Nov 19 with 803 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:18 - Nov 19 by shingle |
Come on now why would he want to put himself through reading all that again
1 Its a load of Bollocks
2 It goes on for ever, typical example of your Napoleon syndrome taking over again. |
Hehe some words, no content.
Feel free to contribute if you have something to add mind!
Napoleon syndrome haha dreaming up fantasies about me again!? | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:41 - Nov 19 with 797 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:06 - Nov 19 by Chief |
Hehe some words, no content.
Feel free to contribute if you have something to add mind!
Napoleon syndrome haha dreaming up fantasies about me again!? |
Your logic is simplistic and you have simply not understood the model of the investment converting into a debt. You have not understood the breakdown of funding and legal costs. Money is precise and clear. Your are a spoiler to confuse.
Bad decisions are made where confusion dominates. Members need to call for a independent financial review to assess the strategy of the SCST. It makes no sense to me at all. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:08 - Nov 19 with 790 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:41 - Nov 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Your logic is simplistic and you have simply not understood the model of the investment converting into a debt. You have not understood the breakdown of funding and legal costs. Money is precise and clear. Your are a spoiler to confuse.
Bad decisions are made where confusion dominates. Members need to call for a independent financial review to assess the strategy of the SCST. It makes no sense to me at all. |
This is just a tactic to divert from unable to respond to the points I make. You cannot demonstrate where I don't understand anything, yet you regularly cart this line out while completing ignoring the discussion itself.
We don't know the breakdown of the costs. You're guessing.
Maybe the trust will seek financial advice if and when the settlement has been confirmed and is known. This maybe my 'simplistic logic' kicking in again, but to do so before the case is done would be a waste of money.
Give me 'simplistic logic' over jingoistic unsubstantiated waffle all day long. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 01:08 - Nov 20 with 747 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:08 - Nov 19 by Chief |
This is just a tactic to divert from unable to respond to the points I make. You cannot demonstrate where I don't understand anything, yet you regularly cart this line out while completing ignoring the discussion itself.
We don't know the breakdown of the costs. You're guessing.
Maybe the trust will seek financial advice if and when the settlement has been confirmed and is known. This maybe my 'simplistic logic' kicking in again, but to do so before the case is done would be a waste of money.
Give me 'simplistic logic' over jingoistic unsubstantiated waffle all day long. |
Look at outcomes and you will get wisdom.
The outcomes for a court win from what I can see, is big money in London pockets that should be going to the club, debts on Winters table and big money stagnating in a 'old farmer' zero interest account. The action will not lay a glove on the so called 'sellouts'. In fact it will save them from dilution.
The SCST should aim to do much better than this. I hope the new leadership can see this and not take bad advice from their predecessors. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 09:18 - Nov 20 with 707 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 01:08 - Nov 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Look at outcomes and you will get wisdom.
The outcomes for a court win from what I can see, is big money in London pockets that should be going to the club, debts on Winters table and big money stagnating in a 'old farmer' zero interest account. The action will not lay a glove on the so called 'sellouts'. In fact it will save them from dilution.
The SCST should aim to do much better than this. I hope the new leadership can see this and not take bad advice from their predecessors. |
The potential outcome will be some money in the pockets of legal firms (the Americans have the power to prevent this) and a considerably larger amount in the Trust's accounts.
The club's already had the money, you say it's been spent and if Silverstein wants shares he can't take his loan back, he convert it.
On the contrary, as above if Silverstein wants shares at Championship prices he'll have to leave his loan in and convert which means dilution for the sellouts. What's more the trust were clear - this action is against the buyers AND sellers. So in the event of a trust 'win' I don't see how the sellouts can really escape sanctions too. This is without the potential for the Americans to counter claim against the sellouts. So you should probably rethink that comment. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 10:30 - Nov 20 with 685 views | Catullus |
Thread well and truly hijacked yet again. Resloven, feel free to start your own threads but why hijack other threads and turn them into what you want to talk about.
This thread was never about Jenkins or Morgan, never about the trust or the court case, it wasn't even about our current owners. It was about EPL money and relegated teams spoiling the Championship as a competition, then you turned up and spoilt it, again. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:00 - Nov 20 with 648 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 10:30 - Nov 20 by Catullus |
Thread well and truly hijacked yet again. Resloven, feel free to start your own threads but why hijack other threads and turn them into what you want to talk about.
This thread was never about Jenkins or Morgan, never about the trust or the court case, it wasn't even about our current owners. It was about EPL money and relegated teams spoiling the Championship as a competition, then you turned up and spoilt it, again. |
I do not agree with your OP and you do not like it. That is the way it is.
Your post argued that money in the games was ruining football. I disagree. Money in football meant that Swansea city could develop state of the art facilities and employ up to 400 people many of them local.
Up until 2002 the club was a mess with no money no prospects a ground that was crumbling and probably a health risk under a succession of mostly poor owners one or two with criminal backgrounds. For Swansea everything was changed by money and good management. Changed for the good.
It has everything to to with Morgan and Jenkins. They understood how to invest and grow. They were hugely successful. You suggested it was not possible to compete. Jenkins as Chairman has Swansea at the top table for 7 years. His teams beat them all except Spurs. Swansea can do it again like Burnley and Brentford. Its getting harder perhaps. But more money means better prospects for a niche player like Swansea with a strong philosophy. Piroe (£30m will be enough). Just what Newcastle United need. (80m barrels of oil will do it at 50 bucks a barrel).
Swansea Fans do not seem bright enough to look at things holistically and respect the work of Jenkins and Morgan. Perhaps the silent majority do. I am not silent. They shut me down on SCFC2. Their site is run by wimp who got bullied by the old guard of operators that like only their own narrative. Welcome to South Wales. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:17 - Nov 20 with 640 views | Catullus |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:00 - Nov 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I do not agree with your OP and you do not like it. That is the way it is.
Your post argued that money in the games was ruining football. I disagree. Money in football meant that Swansea city could develop state of the art facilities and employ up to 400 people many of them local.
Up until 2002 the club was a mess with no money no prospects a ground that was crumbling and probably a health risk under a succession of mostly poor owners one or two with criminal backgrounds. For Swansea everything was changed by money and good management. Changed for the good.
It has everything to to with Morgan and Jenkins. They understood how to invest and grow. They were hugely successful. You suggested it was not possible to compete. Jenkins as Chairman has Swansea at the top table for 7 years. His teams beat them all except Spurs. Swansea can do it again like Burnley and Brentford. Its getting harder perhaps. But more money means better prospects for a niche player like Swansea with a strong philosophy. Piroe (£30m will be enough). Just what Newcastle United need. (80m barrels of oil will do it at 50 bucks a barrel).
Swansea Fans do not seem bright enough to look at things holistically and respect the work of Jenkins and Morgan. Perhaps the silent majority do. I am not silent. They shut me down on SCFC2. Their site is run by wimp who got bullied by the old guard of operators that like only their own narrative. Welcome to South Wales. |
It's about parachute payments unbalancing the division. Not about anything else. If you can't understand that, it's your problem.
Do you really think that as a Swansea fan yourself, allegedly, calling all other Swansea fans thick is the best choice?
Again, it's nothing to do with Jenkins and Morgan, they are in the past. Please try to live in the present and if you want to keep discussing Jenkins and Morgan, start your own thread.
Your inability to understand those simple things will have others questioning your intelligence. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:17 - Nov 20 with 640 views | shingle |
Well after all that there is no doubt Resolven Swan has well and truly out debated and owned the Chief . [Post edited 20 Nov 2021 18:23]
| | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:31 - Nov 20 with 628 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:00 - Nov 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I do not agree with your OP and you do not like it. That is the way it is.
Your post argued that money in the games was ruining football. I disagree. Money in football meant that Swansea city could develop state of the art facilities and employ up to 400 people many of them local.
Up until 2002 the club was a mess with no money no prospects a ground that was crumbling and probably a health risk under a succession of mostly poor owners one or two with criminal backgrounds. For Swansea everything was changed by money and good management. Changed for the good.
It has everything to to with Morgan and Jenkins. They understood how to invest and grow. They were hugely successful. You suggested it was not possible to compete. Jenkins as Chairman has Swansea at the top table for 7 years. His teams beat them all except Spurs. Swansea can do it again like Burnley and Brentford. Its getting harder perhaps. But more money means better prospects for a niche player like Swansea with a strong philosophy. Piroe (£30m will be enough). Just what Newcastle United need. (80m barrels of oil will do it at 50 bucks a barrel).
Swansea Fans do not seem bright enough to look at things holistically and respect the work of Jenkins and Morgan. Perhaps the silent majority do. I am not silent. They shut me down on SCFC2. Their site is run by wimp who got bullied by the old guard of operators that like only their own narrative. Welcome to South Wales. |
'Swansea Fans do not seem bright enough'
And you're still sticking with the pretence that you are a Swans fan and nothing more?  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.