| The Resloven and Chief love in... 11:36 - Nov 13 with 7157 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 22:35 - Nov 22 with 868 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 22:23 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
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. |
You've said that a few times now, but without evidence, it's weak attempt at an insult. Play the board not the player.
Incorrect. If I didn't see a long term benefit for the club I wouldn't support action. It's not like the members are going to get a dividend from this it anything. No one's chasing any investment away. If Silverstein or Americans still want to convert and dilute, the doors open.
The case isn't causing debts to the club. The club as an entity isn't being taken to court. Some people who own shares the club are due to their own shortcomings.
Volunteers who'll be overseeing a fund with resources large enough to engage experts you mean? |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:39 - Nov 22 with 838 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 22:35 - Nov 22 by Chief |
You've said that a few times now, but without evidence, it's weak attempt at an insult. Play the board not the player.
Incorrect. If I didn't see a long term benefit for the club I wouldn't support action. It's not like the members are going to get a dividend from this it anything. No one's chasing any investment away. If Silverstein or Americans still want to convert and dilute, the doors open.
The case isn't causing debts to the club. The club as an entity isn't being taken to court. Some people who own shares the club are due to their own shortcomings.
Volunteers who'll be overseeing a fund with resources large enough to engage experts you mean? |
It is you talking pretty low level personal stuff, not me. Sh*gging bankers etc. I ignored it.
You see benefit in long term for the club but this depends on the ability to reinvest and use the Swansea city name and badge . This not guaranteed. The longer they are out the lower the value of their cash and use to the club.
Loss investment and debts to the club are the possible logical result of a successful case. It is an indirect consequence. Why do you think the CLN has a 5 year term?
The SCST has held big funds for quite some time but has not invested their cash holding. Members if on the case should be asking for an explanation. It could be due to constitutional restrictions. |  |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 06:59 - Nov 23 with 804 views | Chief |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:39 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is you talking pretty low level personal stuff, not me. Sh*gging bankers etc. I ignored it.
You see benefit in long term for the club but this depends on the ability to reinvest and use the Swansea city name and badge . This not guaranteed. The longer they are out the lower the value of their cash and use to the club.
Loss investment and debts to the club are the possible logical result of a successful case. It is an indirect consequence. Why do you think the CLN has a 5 year term?
The SCST has held big funds for quite some time but has not invested their cash holding. Members if on the case should be asking for an explanation. It could be due to constitutional restrictions. |
Well I had to add some to humour to check whether to you actually bother reading replies.
Nothing is guaranteed. What is likely is that in the event of a trust win the reward will be in excess of anything they'd be able to gain in practical terms and monetary terms for the foreseeable future. So they've got a fighting chance at that point. They name and badge are different to the football club's so not sure what you're getting at there.
Because they're going to want their money back at some point probably. 5 years seems middle of the road amount of time to see where the club is.
Not really big funds, especially with the need to dip into it presumably almost on a daily basis. We've been through this previously. There are regulations trust's are subject too. However the realistic constraints and possibilities on 800k holding compared to a multi million pound holding are going to be vastly different. | |
| |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 10:07 - Nov 23 with 775 views | onehunglow |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 23:39 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is you talking pretty low level personal stuff, not me. Sh*gging bankers etc. I ignored it.
You see benefit in long term for the club but this depends on the ability to reinvest and use the Swansea city name and badge . This not guaranteed. The longer they are out the lower the value of their cash and use to the club.
Loss investment and debts to the club are the possible logical result of a successful case. It is an indirect consequence. Why do you think the CLN has a 5 year term?
The SCST has held big funds for quite some time but has not invested their cash holding. Members if on the case should be asking for an explanation. It could be due to constitutional restrictions. |
Bankers have families too | |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 12:19 - Nov 23 with 747 views | A_Fans_Dad |
I would have said the "Resolven & Chief thread" would have been fairer. | | | |
| The Resloven thread on 12:24 - Nov 23 with 744 views | Chief |
| The Resloven thread on 12:19 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
I would have said the "Resolven & Chief thread" would have been fairer. |
I'm just replying. As usual I didn't start it. | |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 12:33 - Nov 23 with 741 views | Catullus |
| The Resloven thread on 12:19 - Nov 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
I would have said the "Resolven & Chief thread" would have been fairer. |
Sorted 
Sorry Chief 
PS, I'm not taking any more requests. | |
| |
| The Resloven thread on 12:35 - Nov 23 with 738 views | Chief |
| The Resloven thread on 12:33 - Nov 23 by Catullus |
Sorted
Sorry Chief
PS, I'm not taking any more requests. |
 | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 13:03 - Nov 23 with 718 views | onehunglow |
Not sure our Admin chap would agree but I think their exchange are the right side of ubuse-just.
I disagree with both. | |
| |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 13:11 - Nov 23 with 722 views | Catullus |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 13:03 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
Not sure our Admin chap would agree but I think their exchange are the right side of ubuse-just.
I disagree with both. |
Ubuse, is that woodwind or brass? | |
| |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 13:12 - Nov 23 with 712 views | onehunglow |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 13:11 - Nov 23 by Catullus |
Ubuse, is that woodwind or brass? |
orry.
I shall abuse myself in fiture | |
| |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 16:07 - Nov 23 with 673 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
I believe the Resloven / Chief debate covers some important issues and gave the generic "greed is bad" OP some 'legs' . The ensuing debate gave resonance and local relevance to th original concept.
In honour of the new year visit of the US owners I will be issuing a:-
"10 reasons why the SCST should not go to court- A personal view " post. Put it in your diary it is going to be a belter. | |
| |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 16:14 - Nov 23 with 669 views | Chief |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 16:07 - Nov 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I believe the Resloven / Chief debate covers some important issues and gave the generic "greed is bad" OP some 'legs' . The ensuing debate gave resonance and local relevance to th original concept.
In honour of the new year visit of the US owners I will be issuing a:-
"10 reasons why the SCST should not go to court- A personal view " post. Put it in your diary it is going to be a belter. |
Is it going to be yet another rehashing of what you've repeated ad nauseum here? And will you actually acknowledge any forthcoming scrutiny?
If not, don't bother. | |
| |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 17:42 - Nov 23 with 659 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 16:14 - Nov 23 by Chief |
Is it going to be yet another rehashing of what you've repeated ad nauseum here? And will you actually acknowledge any forthcoming scrutiny?
If not, don't bother. |
The issue is as follows.
Does a successful legal action by the SCST help the club in the long term? If so how?
With power come responsibility. The number one issue is can they make money outside the club? They can make money in the club.
Is the SCST doing the case for the best interests of the SCST or the best interests of the club?.
I do not want a situation where the SCST is a group of old men sitting on a declining massive cash pile with nothing to spend it on waiting for Armagedon to come.
Too many members have taken your "do not bother advice" while not even knowing what the third party funders fees are. You appear to promote a cause without knowing the price? | |
| |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 18:22 - Nov 23 with 644 views | BillyChong |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 16:14 - Nov 23 by Chief |
Is it going to be yet another rehashing of what you've repeated ad nauseum here? And will you actually acknowledge any forthcoming scrutiny?
If not, don't bother. |
Resolven bingo at the ready: “Burnley” “Santander” “Exeter” “Maidstone lawyers” random crystal ball financial predictions, the shareholders agreement (maybe not) etc etc | | | |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 18:40 - Nov 23 with 640 views | shingle |
| Unfair, unequal, undesirable on 19:12 - Nov 22 by Chief |
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  |
That was a SHORT response Napoleon.  | | | |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 18:45 - Nov 23 with 631 views | Chief |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 17:42 - Nov 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The issue is as follows.
Does a successful legal action by the SCST help the club in the long term? If so how?
With power come responsibility. The number one issue is can they make money outside the club? They can make money in the club.
Is the SCST doing the case for the best interests of the SCST or the best interests of the club?.
I do not want a situation where the SCST is a group of old men sitting on a declining massive cash pile with nothing to spend it on waiting for Armagedon to come.
Too many members have taken your "do not bother advice" while not even knowing what the third party funders fees are. You appear to promote a cause without knowing the price? |
- By gaining a large fund purely and solely to protect and safeguard the club should it need it in the future. This has been explained to you many times.
- There are investment options available to with the sums of money they stand to gain. This has been explained to you many times.
- No one can personally financially gain from the trust receiving this money. This has been explained to you many times.
- Why not? When that Armageddon comes the trust will be ready. This has been explained to you many times.
- The trust cannot publically release any details of its funding or amounts of capital available to fight the case as it can be used by the opposition to form their strategy. This has been explained to you many times. | |
| |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 19:35 - Nov 23 with 614 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 18:45 - Nov 23 by Chief |
- By gaining a large fund purely and solely to protect and safeguard the club should it need it in the future. This has been explained to you many times.
- There are investment options available to with the sums of money they stand to gain. This has been explained to you many times.
- No one can personally financially gain from the trust receiving this money. This has been explained to you many times.
- Why not? When that Armageddon comes the trust will be ready. This has been explained to you many times.
- The trust cannot publically release any details of its funding or amounts of capital available to fight the case as it can be used by the opposition to form their strategy. This has been explained to you many times. |
Hopeless. | |
| |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 21:48 - Nov 23 with 566 views | Chief |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 19:35 - Nov 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Hopeless. |
 | |
| |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 14:33 - Nov 24 with 502 views | Catullus |
| The Resloven and Chief love in... on 13:12 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
orry.
I shall abuse myself in fiture |
That's definitely woodwind  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.