| The Resloven and Chief love in... 11:36 - Nov 13 with 7159 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 18:40 - Nov 21 with 909 views | shingle |
| 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? |
Do not quote me but this comes from an unnamed but reliable source, that you are mates with Peter Dinklage and Warren Davies, if true any chance of getting me there autographs and i promise to never call you Napoleon again.  | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:57 - Nov 21 with 895 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:40 - Nov 21 by shingle |
Do not quote me but this comes from an unnamed but reliable source, that you are mates with Peter Dinklage and Warren Davies, if true any chance of getting me there autographs and i promise to never call you Napoleon again. |
Good input to the debate that!
Who's Warren Davies? The guy who plays for Trefelin 2nds!?  |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:11 - Nov 21 with 887 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:57 - Nov 21 by Chief |
Good input to the debate that!
Who's Warren Davies? The guy who plays for Trefelin 2nds!? |
In my assessment The US people will recover their loan to pay half the legal bill in the event of a SCST legal win.
Please explain the logic of the SCST.
Why take £10m of the money promised to the club (the CLN used to buy Piroe and Grimes) if the only plan is a paltry 0.15% pa in Santander?
This is the financial planing of a 90 year old Llandeilo farmer. The members not just you need to answer this question before going to court. |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:17 - Nov 21 with 865 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:11 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
In my assessment The US people will recover their loan to pay half the legal bill in the event of a SCST legal win.
Please explain the logic of the SCST.
Why take £10m of the money promised to the club (the CLN used to buy Piroe and Grimes) if the only plan is a paltry 0.15% pa in Santander?
This is the financial planing of a 90 year old Llandeilo farmer. The members not just you need to answer this question before going to court. |
And unfortunately your assessment is too biased to be given much credence. It's too littered with your twisted assumptions and unbalanced guesses. So against that backdrop of unlikely and illogical events it can't be explained:
- 5mill is the figure loaned to the club by people involved in the case.
- you don't know what the trust will invest in. Please refer back to the numerous times I've explained to you why it's silly to try and guess this.
And that's just the factual leaps of faith. Let alone your dollops of guesswork on top like pretending the money will be the same money loaned to the club (which is repayable at present anyway).
The logic has been from outset. I've told it you several times. Try to not ignore so much of what I write and maybe it'll be clearer to you. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 13:58 - Nov 22 with 801 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 21:17 - Nov 21 by Chief |
And unfortunately your assessment is too biased to be given much credence. It's too littered with your twisted assumptions and unbalanced guesses. So against that backdrop of unlikely and illogical events it can't be explained:
- 5mill is the figure loaned to the club by people involved in the case.
- you don't know what the trust will invest in. Please refer back to the numerous times I've explained to you why it's silly to try and guess this.
And that's just the factual leaps of faith. Let alone your dollops of guesswork on top like pretending the money will be the same money loaned to the club (which is repayable at present anyway).
The logic has been from outset. I've told it you several times. Try to not ignore so much of what I write and maybe it'll be clearer to you. |
Please explain the logic of the SCST.
Why take £10m of the money promised to the club (the CLN used to buy Piroe and secure Grimes) if the only plan is a paltry 0.15% pa in Santander?
Is this the plan the SCST are paying third parties up to £7m for?
"Twisted" "unbalanced" "illogical" "dollops of guesswork". Yea right. I am asking awkward questions and you as a member and promoter of legal action have no answers.
. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:45 - Nov 22 with 783 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 13:58 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Please explain the logic of the SCST.
Why take £10m of the money promised to the club (the CLN used to buy Piroe and secure Grimes) if the only plan is a paltry 0.15% pa in Santander?
Is this the plan the SCST are paying third parties up to £7m for?
"Twisted" "unbalanced" "illogical" "dollops of guesswork". Yea right. I am asking awkward questions and you as a member and promoter of legal action have no answers.
. |
Let's spell it out for you. Surely going forward you can't pretend to ignore this now:
- To gain a large to safeguard the future of the club.
- They aren't taking £10mill out of the club. Action is against the sellers and buyers.
- You're guessing that's the plan and the rate.
- You're guessing they're paying third parties that amount (if they're liable to at all).
I've answered you repeatedly I make a point of addressing every point you make. You'll go off on your copy and pasting again now and ignore what people are telling you though no doubt. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 15:15 - Nov 22 with 771 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 14:45 - Nov 22 by Chief |
Let's spell it out for you. Surely going forward you can't pretend to ignore this now:
- To gain a large to safeguard the future of the club.
- They aren't taking £10mill out of the club. Action is against the sellers and buyers.
- You're guessing that's the plan and the rate.
- You're guessing they're paying third parties that amount (if they're liable to at all).
I've answered you repeatedly I make a point of addressing every point you make. You'll go off on your copy and pasting again now and ignore what people are telling you though no doubt. |
Butter it up any way you like. The US want to buy shares.
If the SCST force them to buy their shares logically the US will do that, and not issue new shares. That is logical is it not? This means Winter will need to repay the CLN. It is £10m. If there is no action new shares will be issued. The CLN has 4 year more to run. The US people have left room in case of a bad result in court.
If the fans go to court and win the club will have a £10m debt to pay in my opinion. I am looking at outcomes. Member should do the same. The US owners will also make the club and fans pay for any loses to them the case causes. (its logic). Selling players cutting jobs increasing ticket prices are options.
You support this action and I am explaining the consequences.
I have presented the downside. So what is the up side?
How will the SCST invest the £14m they get? You are promoting this action you must know?.
Tell me the upside that justifies paying 3rd parties up to £5-7m in fees (which is not recoverable).
Their investment record with up to £1m in their account is around 0.15% pa in interest. This is 3.85% less than inflation . £15m on account loses £577,500, in real terms per year. You have a calculator don't you and a maths CSE?
There is a upside. The upside is for lawyers bankers insurers and probably none of them are in Swansea or even Wales. The members are dancing for bankers. Some have the gall to call themselves socialists no doubt or even Welsh patriots. Tampie Killkenny where are you?
The bill to the SCST £5-7M fees + tax plus £500,000 year on years in lost interest. In 20 years on the basis of what we know the SCT will have turned £21m into about £5m in 'real terms '.
Some 'safeguard'. [Post edited 22 Nov 2021 15:17]
| |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:36 - Nov 22 with 753 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 15:15 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Butter it up any way you like. The US want to buy shares.
If the SCST force them to buy their shares logically the US will do that, and not issue new shares. That is logical is it not? This means Winter will need to repay the CLN. It is £10m. If there is no action new shares will be issued. The CLN has 4 year more to run. The US people have left room in case of a bad result in court.
If the fans go to court and win the club will have a £10m debt to pay in my opinion. I am looking at outcomes. Member should do the same. The US owners will also make the club and fans pay for any loses to them the case causes. (its logic). Selling players cutting jobs increasing ticket prices are options.
You support this action and I am explaining the consequences.
I have presented the downside. So what is the up side?
How will the SCST invest the £14m they get? You are promoting this action you must know?.
Tell me the upside that justifies paying 3rd parties up to £5-7m in fees (which is not recoverable).
Their investment record with up to £1m in their account is around 0.15% pa in interest. This is 3.85% less than inflation . £15m on account loses £577,500, in real terms per year. You have a calculator don't you and a maths CSE?
There is a upside. The upside is for lawyers bankers insurers and probably none of them are in Swansea or even Wales. The members are dancing for bankers. Some have the gall to call themselves socialists no doubt or even Welsh patriots. Tampie Killkenny where are you?
The bill to the SCST £5-7M fees + tax plus £500,000 year on years in lost interest. In 20 years on the basis of what we know the SCT will have turned £21m into about £5m in 'real terms '.
Some 'safeguard'. [Post edited 22 Nov 2021 15:17]
|
They still can - nothing stopping them. As I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, there are other shareholders to dilute. They've also got the opportunity to bid for the trust's shares to prevent court if they wish. The world's their oyster.
That means Silverstein won't get any shares? I thought you said he wanted some? Well without conversion he's not going to get any. So no not logical at actually. As it stands the club has to repay it anyway. You're assuming the two are linked, certainly for Silverstein they shouldn't be. Why wouldn't he carry on his plan?
The club already has a 10mill debt. I'm looking at outcomes and told you them. But as I predicted this your standard ignore and copy and paste job again. Doesn't that get boring? Regurgitating the same dirge day in day out? Do you even read the replies? If they asset strip to pay their own bills and raise ticket prices fans won't buy the tickets. Especially if we're in league 1.
Haha is this a wind up? Seriously how many times does this have to be repeated to you? £14mill is your dreamt up figure based on nothing, ignoring the potential for the losers to pay the legal bills and some damages from the sellouts potentially too. Is it prudent/ savvy for the trust to go into the detail of the ongoing plan without - 1) knowing the result.
2) knowing the award.
3) knowing how the world will look at the time of the award.
4) knowing how any award will be structured.
How do you know they won't be recoverable? You are presenting it as fact. Where's the evidence?
Their investment record as you know has been constrained by several factors up until this point. Do I really need to explain this again?
And again an assumption that you know exactly which account the money will be kept in. But you don't know at all do you?
As I keep saying tell the Americans. They can avoid the need for legal representatives all round. Did a lawyer shagg your Mrs or something!? You've got it right in for them.
Well that safeguard is far better than any safeguard currently in place and likely to be obtained for some time. Couple that with yet more assumptions ( you don't know) how / where the fund will be stored nor the state of the club in years to come. Just because inflation is at a certain rate now doesn't automatically mean the club will increase in value. That depends largely on the team's performance. Which long term.you also don't know.
So a fair of nonsense from you there. Can't wait for you to repeat it all soon. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 17:26 - Nov 22 with 740 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 16:36 - Nov 22 by Chief |
They still can - nothing stopping them. As I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, there are other shareholders to dilute. They've also got the opportunity to bid for the trust's shares to prevent court if they wish. The world's their oyster.
That means Silverstein won't get any shares? I thought you said he wanted some? Well without conversion he's not going to get any. So no not logical at actually. As it stands the club has to repay it anyway. You're assuming the two are linked, certainly for Silverstein they shouldn't be. Why wouldn't he carry on his plan?
The club already has a 10mill debt. I'm looking at outcomes and told you them. But as I predicted this your standard ignore and copy and paste job again. Doesn't that get boring? Regurgitating the same dirge day in day out? Do you even read the replies? If they asset strip to pay their own bills and raise ticket prices fans won't buy the tickets. Especially if we're in league 1.
Haha is this a wind up? Seriously how many times does this have to be repeated to you? £14mill is your dreamt up figure based on nothing, ignoring the potential for the losers to pay the legal bills and some damages from the sellouts potentially too. Is it prudent/ savvy for the trust to go into the detail of the ongoing plan without - 1) knowing the result.
2) knowing the award.
3) knowing how the world will look at the time of the award.
4) knowing how any award will be structured.
How do you know they won't be recoverable? You are presenting it as fact. Where's the evidence?
Their investment record as you know has been constrained by several factors up until this point. Do I really need to explain this again?
And again an assumption that you know exactly which account the money will be kept in. But you don't know at all do you?
As I keep saying tell the Americans. They can avoid the need for legal representatives all round. Did a lawyer shagg your Mrs or something!? You've got it right in for them.
Well that safeguard is far better than any safeguard currently in place and likely to be obtained for some time. Couple that with yet more assumptions ( you don't know) how / where the fund will be stored nor the state of the club in years to come. Just because inflation is at a certain rate now doesn't automatically mean the club will increase in value. That depends largely on the team's performance. Which long term.you also don't know.
So a fair of nonsense from you there. Can't wait for you to repeat it all soon. |
They do not want to buy the SCST s shares because they want to buy new shares. This puts money into the club. If the SCST forces them to buy their shares at 2016 prices they will have to do that, or face legal consequences. They will then use the CLN money to cover half the bill in my opinion. In this case they will not issue new shares and Winter will probably have to pay them back by selling club assets. The hot shot Dutchman for example.
You seem reasonably bright so should be able to understand that.
If the court case is lost Silverstein will buy the SCST shares with his £5m not put £5m into the club in my opinion. He would in that event have to come to an accommodation with Levein and co over the price. He could of course leg it and invest in Derby County.
As it stands the club does not have to repay. Winter gave the "as it stands option" and said there was "no debt". The reported £10m is an investment and will only become a debt if the US people call it in. They will call it in if they have to buy the SCST shares (in my opinion)
"There is no debt". Do you get it yet?
The costs for no win no fee cases are known to be huge as the risk of losing is paid by the funders. It is understood they will demand huge fees and this has been confirmed, My rough estimates are just that. As I understand it the court cannot award these costs. It is a private arrangement. I would expect members to know the rough costs after all you voted for it.
The SCST were getting 0.15% interest on their money. I was getting 1.15% on my business account at HSBC. (7 time more). I may be wrong but there has been no evidence of gilt edged astuteness in their history other than the day in 2002 when then formed.
The SCST people like you talk of a 'safeguard'. I am suggesting they cannot deliver. No one can predict the future interest rates and inflation. However measures must be in place to protect against inflation. Inflation is historically low. The SCST cannot beat inflation without taking risk with investments.
You have a lot of questions. I have put a scenario to you which looks logical to me. You come back with questions and doubts. You can clear those by ringing up the SCST and asking them. You are a member.
The vote was a few years back and time has passed. The owners are actually not the people they were painted as. The members can see it with their own eyes. The US people are committed to helping the club. Dragging them through courts in a foreign land makes no sense to me at all. Martin thanks them for their excellent support. [Post edited 22 Nov 2021 17:44]
| |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:19 - Nov 22 with 721 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:57 - Nov 21 by Chief |
Good input to the debate that!
Who's Warren Davies? The guy who plays for Trefelin 2nds!? |
No autographs for me then Napoleon.  | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:29 - Nov 22 with 717 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 17:26 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They do not want to buy the SCST s shares because they want to buy new shares. This puts money into the club. If the SCST forces them to buy their shares at 2016 prices they will have to do that, or face legal consequences. They will then use the CLN money to cover half the bill in my opinion. In this case they will not issue new shares and Winter will probably have to pay them back by selling club assets. The hot shot Dutchman for example.
You seem reasonably bright so should be able to understand that.
If the court case is lost Silverstein will buy the SCST shares with his £5m not put £5m into the club in my opinion. He would in that event have to come to an accommodation with Levein and co over the price. He could of course leg it and invest in Derby County.
As it stands the club does not have to repay. Winter gave the "as it stands option" and said there was "no debt". The reported £10m is an investment and will only become a debt if the US people call it in. They will call it in if they have to buy the SCST shares (in my opinion)
"There is no debt". Do you get it yet?
The costs for no win no fee cases are known to be huge as the risk of losing is paid by the funders. It is understood they will demand huge fees and this has been confirmed, My rough estimates are just that. As I understand it the court cannot award these costs. It is a private arrangement. I would expect members to know the rough costs after all you voted for it.
The SCST were getting 0.15% interest on their money. I was getting 1.15% on my business account at HSBC. (7 time more). I may be wrong but there has been no evidence of gilt edged astuteness in their history other than the day in 2002 when then formed.
The SCST people like you talk of a 'safeguard'. I am suggesting they cannot deliver. No one can predict the future interest rates and inflation. However measures must be in place to protect against inflation. Inflation is historically low. The SCST cannot beat inflation without taking risk with investments.
You have a lot of questions. I have put a scenario to you which looks logical to me. You come back with questions and doubts. You can clear those by ringing up the SCST and asking them. You are a member.
The vote was a few years back and time has passed. The owners are actually not the people they were painted as. The members can see it with their own eyes. The US people are committed to helping the club. Dragging them through courts in a foreign land makes no sense to me at all. Martin thanks them for their excellent support. [Post edited 22 Nov 2021 17:44]
|
They still can. There are still other shareholders to dilute. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that Silverstein isn't involved in this action so it makes no sense for him to remove his loan and then receive neither interest or championship priced shares. Again this is a repeat - if they asset strip the club for their own debts the club and share price of their own asset will plummet.
Why would Silverstein buy shares at premier league prices when he can buy some at 2020 Championship prices?
As it stands the club does have to repay it. It's a loan. Loans are repayable. They've even set an interest rate on it.
Winter clarified that though didn't he to say *besides a small loan. Do you get it?
But you don't know the arrangement the trust have agreed. You're guessing. You don't know if it's no win, no fee. You're making it up. To point out another point you keep completely ignoring - the trust cannot publically state how much a fund they have to fight the case. Do you realise utterly stupid that would be of them to tell the world and the Americans that!? Come on I know you only acknowledge things that want to despite things being repeatedly told to you, but even you must realise this?
Why are you ignoring the points I set out in my last post regarding the account and fund going forward then? Not suiting your narrative?
I have a lot of questions because I feel the need to pose them to you to make you think about what you're typing. Unfortunately you're still doing your tired copy and paste rehashing instead of replying like how debates are meant to be carried out.
Based on what evidence can't they deliver? Based on your skewed opinion. You need to have a more open mind. You'll say based on their past record. The rate they've had on accounts in the past is not relevant. This is a completely different ball game. But again you'll ignore this obvious point.
As I've told you no trust member can predict the future no frankly do they need to. They can't say at this point what the result will be, what the award will be, what the payment structure will be, what the membership will vote for etc etc etc. I understand the reality. You seem incapable of doing so. You're the one with the answerable questions without the grasp of reality. I ask you questions as above to challenge your flawed arguments.
The vote still stands - there's no appetite whatsoever to re-do the vote just to get to court and get it done once and for all. Well you're the one describing the Americans as people who'd asset strip and haphazardly handicap their own asset to pay their own personal bills. You're justifying what many have thought all along.
Foreign land? | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:58 - Nov 22 with 704 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:29 - Nov 22 by Chief |
They still can. There are still other shareholders to dilute. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that Silverstein isn't involved in this action so it makes no sense for him to remove his loan and then receive neither interest or championship priced shares. Again this is a repeat - if they asset strip the club for their own debts the club and share price of their own asset will plummet.
Why would Silverstein buy shares at premier league prices when he can buy some at 2020 Championship prices?
As it stands the club does have to repay it. It's a loan. Loans are repayable. They've even set an interest rate on it.
Winter clarified that though didn't he to say *besides a small loan. Do you get it?
But you don't know the arrangement the trust have agreed. You're guessing. You don't know if it's no win, no fee. You're making it up. To point out another point you keep completely ignoring - the trust cannot publically state how much a fund they have to fight the case. Do you realise utterly stupid that would be of them to tell the world and the Americans that!? Come on I know you only acknowledge things that want to despite things being repeatedly told to you, but even you must realise this?
Why are you ignoring the points I set out in my last post regarding the account and fund going forward then? Not suiting your narrative?
I have a lot of questions because I feel the need to pose them to you to make you think about what you're typing. Unfortunately you're still doing your tired copy and paste rehashing instead of replying like how debates are meant to be carried out.
Based on what evidence can't they deliver? Based on your skewed opinion. You need to have a more open mind. You'll say based on their past record. The rate they've had on accounts in the past is not relevant. This is a completely different ball game. But again you'll ignore this obvious point.
As I've told you no trust member can predict the future no frankly do they need to. They can't say at this point what the result will be, what the award will be, what the payment structure will be, what the membership will vote for etc etc etc. I understand the reality. You seem incapable of doing so. You're the one with the answerable questions without the grasp of reality. I ask you questions as above to challenge your flawed arguments.
The vote still stands - there's no appetite whatsoever to re-do the vote just to get to court and get it done once and for all. Well you're the one describing the Americans as people who'd asset strip and haphazardly handicap their own asset to pay their own personal bills. You're justifying what many have thought all along.
Foreign land? |
Maybe exercise, dog walking, books on Napoleon books on Dwarfism just throwing a few ideas about to try and help you. | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:12 - Nov 22 with 690 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:58 - Nov 22 by shingle |
Maybe exercise, dog walking, books on Napoleon books on Dwarfism just throwing a few ideas about to try and help you. |
Yes and you'd be an authority on the subject - being the person who has a vendetta against a random person a forum which manifests itself in frantic down arrowing of their posts  | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:11 - Nov 22 with 664 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:29 - Nov 22 by Chief |
They still can. There are still other shareholders to dilute. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that Silverstein isn't involved in this action so it makes no sense for him to remove his loan and then receive neither interest or championship priced shares. Again this is a repeat - if they asset strip the club for their own debts the club and share price of their own asset will plummet.
Why would Silverstein buy shares at premier league prices when he can buy some at 2020 Championship prices?
As it stands the club does have to repay it. It's a loan. Loans are repayable. They've even set an interest rate on it.
Winter clarified that though didn't he to say *besides a small loan. Do you get it?
But you don't know the arrangement the trust have agreed. You're guessing. You don't know if it's no win, no fee. You're making it up. To point out another point you keep completely ignoring - the trust cannot publically state how much a fund they have to fight the case. Do you realise utterly stupid that would be of them to tell the world and the Americans that!? Come on I know you only acknowledge things that want to despite things being repeatedly told to you, but even you must realise this?
Why are you ignoring the points I set out in my last post regarding the account and fund going forward then? Not suiting your narrative?
I have a lot of questions because I feel the need to pose them to you to make you think about what you're typing. Unfortunately you're still doing your tired copy and paste rehashing instead of replying like how debates are meant to be carried out.
Based on what evidence can't they deliver? Based on your skewed opinion. You need to have a more open mind. You'll say based on their past record. The rate they've had on accounts in the past is not relevant. This is a completely different ball game. But again you'll ignore this obvious point.
As I've told you no trust member can predict the future no frankly do they need to. They can't say at this point what the result will be, what the award will be, what the payment structure will be, what the membership will vote for etc etc etc. I understand the reality. You seem incapable of doing so. You're the one with the answerable questions without the grasp of reality. I ask you questions as above to challenge your flawed arguments.
The vote still stands - there's no appetite whatsoever to re-do the vote just to get to court and get it done once and for all. Well you're the one describing the Americans as people who'd asset strip and haphazardly handicap their own asset to pay their own personal bills. You're justifying what many have thought all along.
Foreign land? |
Silverstein is a partner of the US team. Both are keen to invest in Swansea city. Neither want to buy the SCST shares. This is because they want to give the money to Winter and the club not to the SCST who they have struggled to make deals with in the past.
I have pointed out the downsides of legal action. These are not exactly defined but legal action will not come cheap. It never does.
I am asking you what the upside is as you along with many others voted for it. Without an investment plan SCST will see their holding halved in 20 years due to inflation.
The upside is not great for SCST if :-
- They will not be allowed to re invest in the club (relations with the local business are poor)
- They cannot invest on global markets.
Santander bank will be their only friend.
US people would in my assessment only take money (their money) out of the club if the SCST forces them to buy the SCST shares. [Post edited 22 Nov 2021 20:12]
| |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 20:36 - Nov 22 with 645 views | onehunglow |
whichever way you look at it,we have been shockingly managed.
We tumbled from the PL from a pretty safe position but now we are back to what we do best.Squabbling over the shattered dreams | |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 20:39 - Nov 22 with 648 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Resloven thread on 20:36 - Nov 22 by onehunglow |
whichever way you look at it,we have been shockingly managed.
We tumbled from the PL from a pretty safe position but now we are back to what we do best.Squabbling over the shattered dreams |
I do not agree with much of what you write but you do have cohones fair play. A SCST without the club support will be as dull as a all male Morris dancing troupe in February in Llanelli. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:44 - Nov 22 with 647 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:11 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Silverstein is a partner of the US team. Both are keen to invest in Swansea city. Neither want to buy the SCST shares. This is because they want to give the money to Winter and the club not to the SCST who they have struggled to make deals with in the past.
I have pointed out the downsides of legal action. These are not exactly defined but legal action will not come cheap. It never does.
I am asking you what the upside is as you along with many others voted for it. Without an investment plan SCST will see their holding halved in 20 years due to inflation.
The upside is not great for SCST if :-
- They will not be allowed to re invest in the club (relations with the local business are poor)
- They cannot invest on global markets.
Santander bank will be their only friend.
US people would in my assessment only take money (their money) out of the club if the SCST forces them to buy the SCST shares. [Post edited 22 Nov 2021 20:12]
|
Partner or not, why would be pay 2016 prices (years before he was involved) when he can get some 2020 (cheaper) prices? Doing that he'd be giving money to the club. If he decides to change his mind on doing that, he's the villain.
You have pointed out what you perceive to be downsides of legal action while ignoring the the comments of the alternative view to which you have no comeback. You just repeat yourself.
Told you several times - to create a large fund to safeguard the future of the club. Told you several times an investment plan cannot be accurately drawn up until the reward is clear and the options are subsequently put to the members.
How are trust relations with local business poor? In what sense? Morgan? Well that bridge is burnt already caused his actions so no change there. And he could well be diluted well down by this point in future.
There are other options such as property etc. And other banks than Santander. You have in for them too for some reason. Did they shagg your partner too or something?
They wouldn't be FORCED to at all. They may choose to, but as it stands that money (their money, 5mill) is repayable anyway. | |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 20:49 - Nov 22 with 639 views | onehunglow |
| The Resloven thread on 20:39 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I do not agree with much of what you write but you do have cohones fair play. A SCST without the club support will be as dull as a all male Morris dancing troupe in February in Llanelli. |
I both agree with you and disagree.Nobody on here will intimidate me to post something I do not feel genuine about. Our demise made me sick to my stomach;it still upsets me.YE,recently I saw on here a post eulogising about the greatest lavatory ever to have worn our shirt.Ki .He was basically forgiven -for downing tools.
Not enough of us believed we merited being at the top table.Well ,we did and we screwed it up.We re as bad as each other.
We've gone from signing world class players to journeymen ,kids on loan and unfit hopefuls .And not a word about that as long as we can call each other utter morons and other pejoratives . We have a 33 yr old ingenue as a manager who is seemingly infallible reading what is posted about him. We have had,Rodgers,Martinez,Laudrup ,Toshack as our managers .This is where we are now .
You have a different narrative to most and I commend you for that notwithstanding we have different views. | |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 21:45 - Nov 22 with 615 views | Boundy |
| The Resloven thread on 20:49 - Nov 22 by onehunglow |
I both agree with you and disagree.Nobody on here will intimidate me to post something I do not feel genuine about. Our demise made me sick to my stomach;it still upsets me.YE,recently I saw on here a post eulogising about the greatest lavatory ever to have worn our shirt.Ki .He was basically forgiven -for downing tools.
Not enough of us believed we merited being at the top table.Well ,we did and we screwed it up.We re as bad as each other.
We've gone from signing world class players to journeymen ,kids on loan and unfit hopefuls .And not a word about that as long as we can call each other utter morons and other pejoratives . We have a 33 yr old ingenue as a manager who is seemingly infallible reading what is posted about him. We have had,Rodgers,Martinez,Laudrup ,Toshack as our managers .This is where we are now .
You have a different narrative to most and I commend you for that notwithstanding we have different views. |
and for most of the Clubs history we've languished far more at the bottom than at the top table, we earned the right and also lost the right to play in possibly the best league
( debatable) . You mention managers , all of whom are living history but why not mention those who preceded them most of whom the names wouldn't be recognised by even the most ardent supporter of the Club. Our position or demise as you call it is still better than the vast majority of Clubs which have never witnessed such highs as I've been privileged to have seen. | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 21:58 - Nov 22 with 607 views | KeithHaynes |
| The Resloven thread on 20:49 - Nov 22 by onehunglow |
I both agree with you and disagree.Nobody on here will intimidate me to post something I do not feel genuine about. Our demise made me sick to my stomach;it still upsets me.YE,recently I saw on here a post eulogising about the greatest lavatory ever to have worn our shirt.Ki .He was basically forgiven -for downing tools.
Not enough of us believed we merited being at the top table.Well ,we did and we screwed it up.We re as bad as each other.
We've gone from signing world class players to journeymen ,kids on loan and unfit hopefuls .And not a word about that as long as we can call each other utter morons and other pejoratives . We have a 33 yr old ingenue as a manager who is seemingly infallible reading what is posted about him. We have had,Rodgers,Martinez,Laudrup ,Toshack as our managers .This is where we are now .
You have a different narrative to most and I commend you for that notwithstanding we have different views. |
The fact we know who they are but they don’t know us is very telling. |  |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 21:59 - Nov 22 with 607 views | Catullus |
| The Resloven thread on 20:49 - Nov 22 by onehunglow |
I both agree with you and disagree.Nobody on here will intimidate me to post something I do not feel genuine about. Our demise made me sick to my stomach;it still upsets me.YE,recently I saw on here a post eulogising about the greatest lavatory ever to have worn our shirt.Ki .He was basically forgiven -for downing tools.
Not enough of us believed we merited being at the top table.Well ,we did and we screwed it up.We re as bad as each other.
We've gone from signing world class players to journeymen ,kids on loan and unfit hopefuls .And not a word about that as long as we can call each other utter morons and other pejoratives . We have a 33 yr old ingenue as a manager who is seemingly infallible reading what is posted about him. We have had,Rodgers,Martinez,Laudrup ,Toshack as our managers .This is where we are now .
You have a different narrative to most and I commend you for that notwithstanding we have different views. |
hang on now, what us fans believed is irrelevant, as you already said we were badly managed. 20k of us believing we deserve to be in the EPL does not make it true. We have no divine right to anything.
We couldn't really afford the wages of average, mid table players let alone world class players. look at the bills and tell me we can afford it,
https://www.totalsportal.com/m
Phil Jagielka on over 50k per week, it's comical really.
Do you really think martin is innocent and unsuspecting, not if he's read these boards. | |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 22:02 - Nov 22 with 604 views | KeithHaynes |
| The Resloven thread on 21:59 - Nov 22 by Catullus |
hang on now, what us fans believed is irrelevant, as you already said we were badly managed. 20k of us believing we deserve to be in the EPL does not make it true. We have no divine right to anything.
We couldn't really afford the wages of average, mid table players let alone world class players. look at the bills and tell me we can afford it,
https://www.totalsportal.com/m
Phil Jagielka on over 50k per week, it's comical really.
Do you really think martin is innocent and unsuspecting, not if he's read these boards. |
From what I know over the last three months or so anyone who thinks he hasn’t visited a variety of supporters boards is living in a different climate. | |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 22:08 - Nov 22 with 601 views | Chief |
| The Resloven thread on 22:02 - Nov 22 by KeithHaynes |
From what I know over the last three months or so anyone who thinks he hasn’t visited a variety of supporters boards is living in a different climate. |
That Walter Boyd poster emerged around the time of his appointment  | |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 22:14 - Nov 22 with 593 views | KeithHaynes |
| The Resloven thread on 22:08 - Nov 22 by Chief |
That Walter Boyd poster emerged around the time of his appointment |
Maybe people should realise due to gpdr websites need to protect themselves as much as the people who post on them 😉 | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 22:23 - Nov 22 with 573 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 20:44 - Nov 22 by Chief |
Partner or not, why would be pay 2016 prices (years before he was involved) when he can get some 2020 (cheaper) prices? Doing that he'd be giving money to the club. If he decides to change his mind on doing that, he's the villain.
You have pointed out what you perceive to be downsides of legal action while ignoring the the comments of the alternative view to which you have no comeback. You just repeat yourself.
Told you several times - to create a large fund to safeguard the future of the club. Told you several times an investment plan cannot be accurately drawn up until the reward is clear and the options are subsequently put to the members.
How are trust relations with local business poor? In what sense? Morgan? Well that bridge is burnt already caused his actions so no change there. And he could well be diluted well down by this point in future.
There are other options such as property etc. And other banks than Santander. You have in for them too for some reason. Did they shagg your partner too or something?
They wouldn't be FORCED to at all. They may choose to, but as it stands that money (their money, 5mill) is repayable anyway. |
You understanding of investment is poor and you are not learning very quickly.
You see things only with respect to the SCST not the club. However the SCST is duty bound by its constitution not to harm the club. This might include chasing away investment in the club for their own benefit as I have explained.
If they can provide a case that their aggressive court actions are in the long term interests of the club then they might have a case. Causing debts to the club and owners will not do this, They will need to demonstrate their ability to make money independently for reinvestment including making up club investment loses. A tall order with volunteers. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.