| The Resloven and Chief love in... 11:36 - Nov 13 with 7158 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 18:50 - Nov 20 with 678 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:28 - Nov 20 by Chief |
Hehe cheerleading for other posters now.
I'll add that to the rap sheet  |
All because you have been owned yet again you are calling me a cheerleader your Napoleon syndrome is full on this evening you poor guy.  | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:00 - Nov 20 with 665 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:50 - Nov 20 by shingle |
All because you have been owned yet again you are calling me a cheerleader your Napoleon syndrome is full on this evening you poor guy. |
Put your pom poms away Shingley.
You'll notice the Resloven once has declined to reply to me unfortunately.
Woops. |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:02 - Nov 20 with 664 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:31 - Nov 20 by Chief |
'Swansea Fans do not seem bright enough'
And you're still sticking with the pretence that you are a Swans fan and nothing more? |
I am a Swansea fans and do not encourage disunity and litigious behaviour and fans wanting to cash in and run away from owning the club. The sellers who left included venture capitalists. Once out they will never be let back in under any circumstances in my opinion.
The fans need to take charge of the SCST and not give one third of its potential away to English financial and legal organisations. It was not what they were set up to do. Payments should only morally be paid to charitable organisations not in bonuses to well healed public school people from Maidenhead. If the fans really want this I can only assume they are a bit dim.
Burnley was sold for £200m valuing the SCST optimum PL valuation at £42m not £14m after fees. This is going up not down as a new bunch of Arabs come to the party. I forgot you do not understand the effects of inflation. 3% annual devaluation after inflation sees a real term losses of up to one half after 20 years. Inflation is currently 4% with maximum interest less than 1%.
Plan? What plan? |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:03 - Nov 20 with 661 views | Catullus |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:50 - Nov 20 by shingle |
All because you have been owned yet again you are calling me a cheerleader your Napoleon syndrome is full on this evening you poor guy. |
I think you are being excessively quarrelsome, you know what that is a symptom of?
You know, this could (should?) be fun but with shit stirrers, trolls and thread hijackers, it's really not so much fun right now.
I have a good book to read. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:20 - Nov 20 with 655 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:02 - Nov 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am a Swansea fans and do not encourage disunity and litigious behaviour and fans wanting to cash in and run away from owning the club. The sellers who left included venture capitalists. Once out they will never be let back in under any circumstances in my opinion.
The fans need to take charge of the SCST and not give one third of its potential away to English financial and legal organisations. It was not what they were set up to do. Payments should only morally be paid to charitable organisations not in bonuses to well healed public school people from Maidenhead. If the fans really want this I can only assume they are a bit dim.
Burnley was sold for £200m valuing the SCST optimum PL valuation at £42m not £14m after fees. This is going up not down as a new bunch of Arabs come to the party. I forgot you do not understand the effects of inflation. 3% annual devaluation after inflation sees a real term losses of up to one half after 20 years. Inflation is currently 4% with maximum interest less than 1%.
Plan? What plan? |
Well if you're a Swansea fan you shouldn't be so harsh on yourself. What you called yourself in your last post was excessive. Give yourself a hug and an apology and move on.
Funny then I don't recall you criticising the ownership when they decided to take legal action against the council. Which they then lost.
The fans that you slandered in your last post? Fans are in change of the trust, who the hell else do you think is? As you know the Americans can avoid the need for either side to need legal representation. If the Americans want it them presumably you think they're dim. You're being awfully critical of them recently - have more faith in them, maybe they'll surprise you and embrace the opportunity to own more shares in our upwardly mobile ambitious club.
Burnley have been in the premier league for 8 seasons and own their own stadium.
The outline plan hasn't changed. To obtain a fund to help secure the future of the football club. You never have any comeback to this point though - without knowing the award amount and without putting it to the membership the specifics are impossible to publically announce now.
Can't wait for you to repeat another monlogue and ignore the points you have no answer to | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:34 - Nov 20 with 651 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:00 - Nov 20 by Chief |
Put your pom poms away Shingley.
You'll notice the Resloven once has declined to reply to me unfortunately.
Woops. |
No need to keep explaining yourself to me Napoleon. | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:37 - Nov 20 with 645 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:34 - Nov 20 by shingle |
No need to keep explaining yourself to me Napoleon. |
Give me an A.... | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:47 - Nov 20 with 637 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:37 - Nov 20 by Chief |
Give me an A.... |
No need you have already been owned by quite a few on here, guess you will need to explain why pretty soon.  | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:52 - Nov 20 with 635 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:47 - Nov 20 by shingle |
No need you have already been owned by quite a few on here, guess you will need to explain why pretty soon. |
Well I can't explain why because it's another fantasy lie you've made up about me! So I can't explain it!  | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:55 - Nov 20 with 634 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:52 - Nov 20 by Chief |
Well I can't explain why because it's another fantasy lie you've made up about me! So I can't explain it! |
Running out of explanations now then Napoleon.  | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:59 - Nov 20 with 633 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:55 - Nov 20 by shingle |
Running out of explanations now then Napoleon. |
Difficult to explain something that's factually incorrect see  | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:07 - Nov 20 with 631 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:59 - Nov 20 by Chief |
Difficult to explain something that's factually incorrect see |
As i say your running out of explanations but your little big man syndrome will soon flair up again and the urge will be to much. | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:11 - Nov 20 with 628 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:07 - Nov 20 by shingle |
As i say your running out of explanations but your little big man syndrome will soon flair up again and the urge will be to much. |
Haha brilliant.
Yup hold my hands up - I have no explanation for something that didn't occur.
 | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:17 - Nov 20 with 622 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:11 - Nov 20 by Chief |
Haha brilliant.
Yup hold my hands up - I have no explanation for something that didn't occur.
|
What didn`t occur. you need to explain that to me. | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:19 - Nov 20 with 619 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:17 - Nov 20 by shingle |
What didn`t occur. you need to explain that to me. |
Shall I write I really really long post explaining it??
Hold on, I thought I didn't have to explain these things to you?  | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:22 - Nov 20 with 617 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:19 - Nov 20 by Chief |
Shall I write I really really long post explaining it??
Hold on, I thought I didn't have to explain these things to you? |
I think it may do you some good to do so to yes go ahead you have my permission. | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:30 - Nov 20 with 613 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:22 - Nov 20 by shingle |
I think it may do you some good to do so to yes go ahead you have my permission. |
Do you want a really really long post explaining it? | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:24 - Nov 20 with 604 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:20 - Nov 20 by Chief |
Well if you're a Swansea fan you shouldn't be so harsh on yourself. What you called yourself in your last post was excessive. Give yourself a hug and an apology and move on.
Funny then I don't recall you criticising the ownership when they decided to take legal action against the council. Which they then lost.
The fans that you slandered in your last post? Fans are in change of the trust, who the hell else do you think is? As you know the Americans can avoid the need for either side to need legal representation. If the Americans want it them presumably you think they're dim. You're being awfully critical of them recently - have more faith in them, maybe they'll surprise you and embrace the opportunity to own more shares in our upwardly mobile ambitious club.
Burnley have been in the premier league for 8 seasons and own their own stadium.
The outline plan hasn't changed. To obtain a fund to help secure the future of the football club. You never have any comeback to this point though - without knowing the award amount and without putting it to the membership the specifics are impossible to publically announce now.
Can't wait for you to repeat another monlogue and ignore the points you have no answer to |
Taking legal action about some peeling paint work is outside my expertise. They should not have gone to court clearly because they lost.
The US people have injected money into the club and will issue new shares when it is converted into an investment. They perhaps do not want the SCST shares. They attempted to buy them in 2017 and got no where for whatever reason. The dynamics of the sales did not work. It is perhaps easier for them to issue new shares.
It is possible that the SCST shares are too expensive. SCST have been able to sell their shares at any time in the last 20 years. There is nothing to stop them selling. Clearly it was better for them to sell 2010-2017 when the club were in the premier league. (they would have got a better price). Perhaps their partners could have bought them.
Going to court is a strategy that I am questioning.
I am asking why the money in their bank will perform better that the asset value as shares in Swansea city. Currently the return is 0.15%. It would make sense if Swansea were falling down the leagues but they are not. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:51 - Nov 20 with 601 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:24 - Nov 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Taking legal action about some peeling paint work is outside my expertise. They should not have gone to court clearly because they lost.
The US people have injected money into the club and will issue new shares when it is converted into an investment. They perhaps do not want the SCST shares. They attempted to buy them in 2017 and got no where for whatever reason. The dynamics of the sales did not work. It is perhaps easier for them to issue new shares.
It is possible that the SCST shares are too expensive. SCST have been able to sell their shares at any time in the last 20 years. There is nothing to stop them selling. Clearly it was better for them to sell 2010-2017 when the club were in the premier league. (they would have got a better price). Perhaps their partners could have bought them.
Going to court is a strategy that I am questioning.
I am asking why the money in their bank will perform better that the asset value as shares in Swansea city. Currently the return is 0.15%. It would make sense if Swansea were falling down the leagues but they are not. |
Hehe that legal the Americans undertook is outside your expertise so you couldn't possibly comment but the trust's well thats fair game for you to comment on. How convenient.
Yes it's pretty obvious they don't want the trust's shares. They didn't from the start.
Well they're about to potentially sell their shares for the same price (minus costs) at the same rate as the sellers so at some point the trust's shares weren't expensive. And no there's nothing in theory to stop them selling. In reality finding a buyer is going to be difficult as is getting a decent price knowing there's a larger shareholder looking to dilute you. It wasn't feasible to sell in the premier league 1. Because they weren't given an offer when the sellers sold and 2. Subsequent offers were lower, had caveats, were rescinded, were changed etc.
Probably best to see what the reward is and what the membership decide to do with it rather than guessing and criticising based on own guess. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 00:43 - Nov 21 with 579 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:51 - Nov 20 by Chief |
Hehe that legal the Americans undertook is outside your expertise so you couldn't possibly comment but the trust's well thats fair game for you to comment on. How convenient.
Yes it's pretty obvious they don't want the trust's shares. They didn't from the start.
Well they're about to potentially sell their shares for the same price (minus costs) at the same rate as the sellers so at some point the trust's shares weren't expensive. And no there's nothing in theory to stop them selling. In reality finding a buyer is going to be difficult as is getting a decent price knowing there's a larger shareholder looking to dilute you. It wasn't feasible to sell in the premier league 1. Because they weren't given an offer when the sellers sold and 2. Subsequent offers were lower, had caveats, were rescinded, were changed etc.
Probably best to see what the reward is and what the membership decide to do with it rather than guessing and criticising based on own guess. |
They do not want to waste time. They spent 4 month trying to make a deal with the SCST and got nowhere. Time is money and wasting it is not good.
The SCST bought their shares in 2002 for £200k and could have sold them at any time of their choosing. Nothing much has changed they were 20% owners then and 21% owners now. The SCST have taken out £600k in dividends.
Selling was difficult when the bought the shares in 2002 and it is difficult now. Selling is not easy. Lowering the price makes it easier and they are sitting on a huge mark up. The SCST were open to dilution for the last 20 years. Nothing has changed.
In 2016 the US people were projected by fans as asset strippers. Hedge funders were the 'bogeyman' who would never invest. The bluff has been called. £10m has gone into the club. Dilution is now the 'bogeyman'. Its a myth. The club is growing faster than the projected rate of dilution.
Investment adds to the value of the club and therefore adds to the value of the overall holding. Dilution protects the investor from freeloading shareholders that cannot or will not invest. Investments aims are to get to the PL and double the 2016 valuation. Dilution is fair process.
Selling was not feasible because the SCST had no mandate. It took a year to get one. That was not the responsibility of anyone else. Right place right time. Always best to be ready for developments. Moving at glacial pace helps no one. Brexit happened at the same time and this is taking longer. Any judgement would in my opinion have some sympathy with people that just want to get things done. The sale was necessary and the buyer brought no debt. [Post edited 21 Nov 2021 0:45]
| |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 01:17 - Nov 21 with 574 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 00:43 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They do not want to waste time. They spent 4 month trying to make a deal with the SCST and got nowhere. Time is money and wasting it is not good.
The SCST bought their shares in 2002 for £200k and could have sold them at any time of their choosing. Nothing much has changed they were 20% owners then and 21% owners now. The SCST have taken out £600k in dividends.
Selling was difficult when the bought the shares in 2002 and it is difficult now. Selling is not easy. Lowering the price makes it easier and they are sitting on a huge mark up. The SCST were open to dilution for the last 20 years. Nothing has changed.
In 2016 the US people were projected by fans as asset strippers. Hedge funders were the 'bogeyman' who would never invest. The bluff has been called. £10m has gone into the club. Dilution is now the 'bogeyman'. Its a myth. The club is growing faster than the projected rate of dilution.
Investment adds to the value of the club and therefore adds to the value of the overall holding. Dilution protects the investor from freeloading shareholders that cannot or will not invest. Investments aims are to get to the PL and double the 2016 valuation. Dilution is fair process.
Selling was not feasible because the SCST had no mandate. It took a year to get one. That was not the responsibility of anyone else. Right place right time. Always best to be ready for developments. Moving at glacial pace helps no one. Brexit happened at the same time and this is taking longer. Any judgement would in my opinion have some sympathy with people that just want to get things done. The sale was necessary and the buyer brought no debt. [Post edited 21 Nov 2021 0:45]
|
Well this case is going to take up more of their time now. And it's not the trust's fault that they decided to change the terms of offers then rescind them, then announce at the last minute they weren't going to turn up for mediation etc etc
Yea well maybe they'd have chosen to sell them when the rest of the shares were sold. But they were excluded.
Correct selling isn't easy. This is why this is such a good opportunity.
I personally never said they'd be asset strippers although I have heard other fans saying that. You alluded to them becoming this a recently though. A 10mill currently repayable with interest loan has gone in yes.
Remains to be seen whether the loan will become an investment and it remains to be seen whether that investment makes the club worth more. I think the only way that can realistic happen is by getting promoted. And realistically it's not going to be down to that 10 mill if and when we get promoted. So say they convert tomorrow, the amount anyone will realistically pay for the club won't be anymore than it would have been prior to the loan. But the minority shareholders will have a lesser stake and lesser sale price. The 'investment' will only increase the overall holding if there are tangible benefits that can be attributed to it, namely promotion. Which isnt happening this season.
You know that's absolute nonsense. Selling wasn't feasible because there were no buyers of offers. If there were a mandate would have been promptly sought. The trust publicly stated prior to the buyout that in certain circumstances they would be open to selling. As you've alluded to yourself the Americans didn't and don't want to buy the trust's shares.
The trust want things done, not turning up for mediation and repeatedly moving the goalposts suggest the sellers aren't so keen. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 06:43 - Nov 21 with 564 views | BillyChong |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 00:43 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They do not want to waste time. They spent 4 month trying to make a deal with the SCST and got nowhere. Time is money and wasting it is not good.
The SCST bought their shares in 2002 for £200k and could have sold them at any time of their choosing. Nothing much has changed they were 20% owners then and 21% owners now. The SCST have taken out £600k in dividends.
Selling was difficult when the bought the shares in 2002 and it is difficult now. Selling is not easy. Lowering the price makes it easier and they are sitting on a huge mark up. The SCST were open to dilution for the last 20 years. Nothing has changed.
In 2016 the US people were projected by fans as asset strippers. Hedge funders were the 'bogeyman' who would never invest. The bluff has been called. £10m has gone into the club. Dilution is now the 'bogeyman'. Its a myth. The club is growing faster than the projected rate of dilution.
Investment adds to the value of the club and therefore adds to the value of the overall holding. Dilution protects the investor from freeloading shareholders that cannot or will not invest. Investments aims are to get to the PL and double the 2016 valuation. Dilution is fair process.
Selling was not feasible because the SCST had no mandate. It took a year to get one. That was not the responsibility of anyone else. Right place right time. Always best to be ready for developments. Moving at glacial pace helps no one. Brexit happened at the same time and this is taking longer. Any judgement would in my opinion have some sympathy with people that just want to get things done. The sale was necessary and the buyer brought no debt. [Post edited 21 Nov 2021 0:45]
|
The so called glacial pace you refer to can be our down to the Americans/sellouts lack of engagement. Kaplan is a law graduate isn’t he? He must have been schooled in Maidenhead | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 15:39 - Nov 21 with 531 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 01:17 - Nov 21 by Chief |
Well this case is going to take up more of their time now. And it's not the trust's fault that they decided to change the terms of offers then rescind them, then announce at the last minute they weren't going to turn up for mediation etc etc
Yea well maybe they'd have chosen to sell them when the rest of the shares were sold. But they were excluded.
Correct selling isn't easy. This is why this is such a good opportunity.
I personally never said they'd be asset strippers although I have heard other fans saying that. You alluded to them becoming this a recently though. A 10mill currently repayable with interest loan has gone in yes.
Remains to be seen whether the loan will become an investment and it remains to be seen whether that investment makes the club worth more. I think the only way that can realistic happen is by getting promoted. And realistically it's not going to be down to that 10 mill if and when we get promoted. So say they convert tomorrow, the amount anyone will realistically pay for the club won't be anymore than it would have been prior to the loan. But the minority shareholders will have a lesser stake and lesser sale price. The 'investment' will only increase the overall holding if there are tangible benefits that can be attributed to it, namely promotion. Which isnt happening this season.
You know that's absolute nonsense. Selling wasn't feasible because there were no buyers of offers. If there were a mandate would have been promptly sought. The trust publicly stated prior to the buyout that in certain circumstances they would be open to selling. As you've alluded to yourself the Americans didn't and don't want to buy the trust's shares.
The trust want things done, not turning up for mediation and repeatedly moving the goalposts suggest the sellers aren't so keen. |
The US people claim they did turn up for mediation. As I understand it from press reports the SCST were not happy with the people the US group nominated for the talks. This is what I can determine from BBC etc.
It appears you are concerned that the SCST are not able to sell their own shares and you support the use of legal means to force other people (their partners) to buy them. This will not encourage partnerships with local businesses in the future I suggest.
I believe the SCST could easily sold their shares in the Premier league if they had made the effort. They made no effort to sell. Like most things it is a matter of price. When anyone buys something they must have some plan to ultimately sell it. Agencies can be used for this purpose.
The US people want to buy shares and invest in the club. They will buy the newly issued shares at the 2020 championship price. By buying new share they give Winter £10m (reported) to spend. If they bought the SCST share Winter would get nothing to spend.
Contrary to your views the £10m CLN has already paid dividends. Piroe, Walsh, Obafemi and Ntcham have signed and Grimes has signed an new deal. This all takes cash. Piroe if he keeps delivering will see his value to rocket to £15m easily. The whole debt is valued at £12m after 5 years. The investment has already paid off.
If the US people are hit with a £20m bill Piroe would be gone in days and the bill SCST will be paid clearing the £10m replacement loan with a £5m special dividend for the owners , if the window is open. Season tickets prices will be hiked.
You can bang on about right s and wrongs and what is said on various documents but all that matters to me is the fortunes of the club and money staying in the club.
As things stand the most likely outcome fro a successful action by the SCST is as follows
- £14m to the SCST
- £7m to the funders insurers legal people
- £10m debt to Swansea city
- £5-6m debt to the clubs owners
With no investment plan and inflation at the current 4%. Santander will make £500,000+ return on the £14m while giving a paltry £21,000 to the SCST per year. The SCST money would decline at a rate of £539,000 per year in real terms or £45,000 per month.
There has n been no investment in anything up to now with close on £1m in the bank. The SCST can promise anything they like. From what I can see, as things stand ,they do not have the intellect to deliver or are prevented from delivering by an unsuitable constitution.
It works fine for Exeter city and teams in league 2. The SCST model is designed n for failure and low aspirations if it cannot invest on global markets. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:47 - Nov 21 with 505 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 15:39 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The US people claim they did turn up for mediation. As I understand it from press reports the SCST were not happy with the people the US group nominated for the talks. This is what I can determine from BBC etc.
It appears you are concerned that the SCST are not able to sell their own shares and you support the use of legal means to force other people (their partners) to buy them. This will not encourage partnerships with local businesses in the future I suggest.
I believe the SCST could easily sold their shares in the Premier league if they had made the effort. They made no effort to sell. Like most things it is a matter of price. When anyone buys something they must have some plan to ultimately sell it. Agencies can be used for this purpose.
The US people want to buy shares and invest in the club. They will buy the newly issued shares at the 2020 championship price. By buying new share they give Winter £10m (reported) to spend. If they bought the SCST share Winter would get nothing to spend.
Contrary to your views the £10m CLN has already paid dividends. Piroe, Walsh, Obafemi and Ntcham have signed and Grimes has signed an new deal. This all takes cash. Piroe if he keeps delivering will see his value to rocket to £15m easily. The whole debt is valued at £12m after 5 years. The investment has already paid off.
If the US people are hit with a £20m bill Piroe would be gone in days and the bill SCST will be paid clearing the £10m replacement loan with a £5m special dividend for the owners , if the window is open. Season tickets prices will be hiked.
You can bang on about right s and wrongs and what is said on various documents but all that matters to me is the fortunes of the club and money staying in the club.
As things stand the most likely outcome fro a successful action by the SCST is as follows
- £14m to the SCST
- £7m to the funders insurers legal people
- £10m debt to Swansea city
- £5-6m debt to the clubs owners
With no investment plan and inflation at the current 4%. Santander will make £500,000+ return on the £14m while giving a paltry £21,000 to the SCST per year. The SCST money would decline at a rate of £539,000 per year in real terms or £45,000 per month.
There has n been no investment in anything up to now with close on £1m in the bank. The SCST can promise anything they like. From what I can see, as things stand ,they do not have the intellect to deliver or are prevented from delivering by an unsuitable constitution.
It works fine for Exeter city and teams in league 2. The SCST model is designed n for failure and low aspirations if it cannot invest on global markets. |
Well that's some way to spin things. But what you're saying is the same as what I said. Kaplan and Levein declined to take part in mediation.
Yes that is an obvious concern. As is obvious the trust's shares don't seem to be desirable. Local businesses will look at he facts. One fact being that if the trust win they were wronged and will know they took a prime opportunity. That's business. You are omitting the Americans litigious past again. They've brought in Silverstein since then so it isn't inhibiting their ability to find partners.
For the vast majority of the time in the premier league the trust don't want to sell under the circumstances that were present. Circumstances change, plans of action change as a result.
Well if you assume that Silverstein no longer wants shares at 2020 Championship prices? Why would he suddenly not want that? No reason for him to change his plans? Same probably applies to the others. As I say there are other shareholders they can dilute and get shares at 2020 prices.
If it's a direct result of this investment? We've got many other income streams, those are player signings - thought the loan was to see us through covid? Yes we've got players but theyll have to deliver promotion to push the needle on share price.
So you're back to pretending the owners will steal club cash while raising ticket prices, but expecting fans to put up with it and buy expensive tickets just isn't realistic. It won't work.
As I keep telling you if the owners pillage the club to pay their own personal debts they'll be handicapping and devaluing an asset they'll have even more control over. Crazily counterproductive.
Well the club already has 10mill debt but isn't involved in this so your scaremongering won't work sorry. All we know for certain is that the reward will be £21mill to the trust and the Americans gain shares. We have no idea of the costs and don't know for certain who'll pay them, so pointless speculating. You've tellingly also omitted the role the sellouts will play. They are subject to action as well, not sure what form any reward will take against them but in the event of a trust win, they'll presumably have to pay something.
Come on now Resloven don't let your bias get the better of you. By your own words the trust stand to have a gigantic mark up which can never be considered a bad deal. This is doubly so with the club in a division below when the sellouts sold. It's frankly spectacularly good business. And if it were anyone else you'd be lauding them.
You keep ignoring my entirely logical words on future investment possibilities and potential reason that a plan hasn't been announced yet. Care to actually address that? I assume you have no reposte? | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 17:59 - Nov 21 with 495 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:47 - Nov 21 by Chief |
Well that's some way to spin things. But what you're saying is the same as what I said. Kaplan and Levein declined to take part in mediation.
Yes that is an obvious concern. As is obvious the trust's shares don't seem to be desirable. Local businesses will look at he facts. One fact being that if the trust win they were wronged and will know they took a prime opportunity. That's business. You are omitting the Americans litigious past again. They've brought in Silverstein since then so it isn't inhibiting their ability to find partners.
For the vast majority of the time in the premier league the trust don't want to sell under the circumstances that were present. Circumstances change, plans of action change as a result.
Well if you assume that Silverstein no longer wants shares at 2020 Championship prices? Why would he suddenly not want that? No reason for him to change his plans? Same probably applies to the others. As I say there are other shareholders they can dilute and get shares at 2020 prices.
If it's a direct result of this investment? We've got many other income streams, those are player signings - thought the loan was to see us through covid? Yes we've got players but theyll have to deliver promotion to push the needle on share price.
So you're back to pretending the owners will steal club cash while raising ticket prices, but expecting fans to put up with it and buy expensive tickets just isn't realistic. It won't work.
As I keep telling you if the owners pillage the club to pay their own personal debts they'll be handicapping and devaluing an asset they'll have even more control over. Crazily counterproductive.
Well the club already has 10mill debt but isn't involved in this so your scaremongering won't work sorry. All we know for certain is that the reward will be £21mill to the trust and the Americans gain shares. We have no idea of the costs and don't know for certain who'll pay them, so pointless speculating. You've tellingly also omitted the role the sellouts will play. They are subject to action as well, not sure what form any reward will take against them but in the event of a trust win, they'll presumably have to pay something.
Come on now Resloven don't let your bias get the better of you. By your own words the trust stand to have a gigantic mark up which can never be considered a bad deal. This is doubly so with the club in a division below when the sellouts sold. It's frankly spectacularly good business. And if it were anyone else you'd be lauding them.
You keep ignoring my entirely logical words on future investment possibilities and potential reason that a plan hasn't been announced yet. Care to actually address that? I assume you have no reposte? |
High ranking officials in their organisation were sent to attend and fulfil the instructions of the court to find common ground. It is for them to pick their representatives not for the opposing side to do it.
Silverstein will have been aware of the legal case and is working hard to persuade the SCST not to go ahead presumably. Silverstein is good for the club. He is straight talking and has money to invest. He knows how to network. I believe the SCST lost out from an abject failure to network.
The US people have £10m to invest by buying new club shares. This puts money into the club to buy Piroe and give Grimes a new contract. . If they have to buy the SCST shares the total cost to them will be £30m cash.
They will clearly, in my opinion not invest under those circumstances and will recover the £10m to help with the bill. Their exposure will only be £10m not £30m. The club will lose the investment it has already mostly spent so will acquire debt. They have had a bit of good luck. Their lucky charm is the young lad from Amsterdam who makes scoring goals look realy easy with either foot.
The SCST are forcing their main partnersto buy sharesthey do not want at expensive prices. One would think they would do this drastic measures if they had big plans for the money. Big investment plans. Their biggest investment plan to date is 0.15% interest in Santander. Are they working for the bankers? If ot what is the plan?
Why take £10m of the money promised to the club to buy Piroe and Grimes if the only plan is a paltry 0.15% pa? The members not just you need to answer this question. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.