| More information on the Convertible Loan note 19:41 - Dec 3 with 12685 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
This is an extract from the Structured dialogue held early this month. (presented on Planetswans) . Given in parenthesis
[Julian stated that last year ownership invested, via a loan note, around £10-13 million. Jake Silverstein invested half, Jason Levien and Steve Kaplan matched that and some of our other shareholders contributed smaller amounts, into a convertible loan note. This club is a debt free club, apart from the convertible loan note, which is designed to leave the club debt free. We have capacity in the loan note to be able to do more and there will be a need this year for them to do more. We need to understand what we need from the January window and get through the beginning of the summer window. Our financial year is from August, so if a player is sold in July, then it would go into this year’s numbers.]
It seems some of the local shareholders may also have contributed. Interesting.
[Post edited 3 Dec 2021 19:44]
|  |
| |  |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:03 - Dec 20 with 1030 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:44 - Dec 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You do not have my permission to move my posts about. Pure ignorance, |
I haven't moved it, I've copy and pasted it. And there's nothing you can do to prevent me doing that. Pure ignorance on your behalf to think that. |  |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:08 - Dec 20 with 1028 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:03 - Dec 20 by Chief |
I haven't moved it, I've copy and pasted it. And there's nothing you can do to prevent me doing that. Pure ignorance on your behalf to think that. |
You moved it without making any comment on the contents. It is the job of Keith to move posts to the most suitable location not yours. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:12 - Dec 20 with 1019 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:08 - Dec 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You moved it without making any comment on the contents. It is the job of Keith to move posts to the most suitable location not yours. |
- I have commented on it (on both threads).
- I didn't move it, I copy and pasted it while properly acknowledging you as the author using the Harvard system of referencing. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:28 - Dec 20 with 1014 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:12 - Dec 20 by Chief |
- I have commented on it (on both threads).
- I didn't move it, I copy and pasted it while properly acknowledging you as the author using the Harvard system of referencing. |
No comment on the content actually.
"Resloven is shying away from this thread but he's trying to derail another one which posters don't like, so I'll move it here. This is what they said (2021):"
Ignorant behaviour. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:35 - Dec 20 with 1008 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:28 - Dec 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
No comment on the content actually.
"Resloven is shying away from this thread but he's trying to derail another one which posters don't like, so I'll move it here. This is what they said (2021):"
Ignorant behaviour. |
Read my next post. It addresses all your concerns. And replies directly to your points..
Apology accepted. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:41 - Dec 20 with 997 views | Chief |
For clarity, because you're obviously having trouble finding it, here's my response to the thread that you originally, erroneously posted on the poster of the year thread:
"And my response is:
- No you are way too down the road of hero worship to change now. Incredibly blinkered, this thread is testiment to that. Made s thread trying to further an agenda, backfired, now shy away from commenting on in fear of having to criticise the American owners. You say you're unique but my view remains the same too. This thread and the circumstances surrounding the CLN vindicate that.
- Well you need to criticise and pressurise the Americans into re-engaging then. The trust have put one hell of a lot of effort into this already, while the Americans promised they would re-engage out of court in their zoom call, but that hasn't happened. The onus is on them to fulfil that pledge to avert having have legal representation.
- Yes and the Americans should make the tough decision to cooperate with the trust. I know they like to think they're hard nosed seasoned campaigners but they're onto a loser. They need to swallow their pride and offer an alternative to court. They have taken a year (and still haven't) yet answered the trust's requests for information on the CLN, so i wouldn't throw stones about time scales if I were them.
- Easy thing to say but if the Americans sabotage the asset they'll have just increased their holding in, they're going to take even longer to return their initial outlay. The £60/70mill will be even further away. The best thing can do is grow up, take the hit, concentrate on getting back to the prem and they'll then own even more of a premier league club than had last time. They can then go down the Burnley route of they so wish. I'm told that realistically attainable and with inflation the Americans stand to make a fortune on their old and newly acquired shares.
- Well the Americans should convert it asap then. Been over a year now. And even without the trust (potentially) post court, there are shareholders to dilute. No skin of Silverstein's nose who he dilutes and gains cheap shares
- It would be a terrible business idea to deliberately plunge the club into debt. That'll could the club back further than its worth to pillage a quick £13million. And this is not a fact, although you state it as such. Have more faith in them Resloven. They have wealthy mates who'd jump at the chance at financing or part owning a football club that could soon get promoted and get Burnley cash.
- you take that up with the people that said that. The trust have never released a statement saying that. Although you have alluded to them taking club funds to finance their personal financial commitments. look within.
- the trust's narrative has always been to be weary of dilution. To suggest otherwise is a falicy. In theory they could be diluted down nothing. Unlikely, but even being diluted a little is not desirable.
- you are lying there. Blatently. If you aren't name your source. Because we know for a fact (that you have not disputed) that:
- They Trust were not invited to contribute to the CLN.
- The Trust were not adequately briefed on the CLN being released.
- The trust have requested clarification on what the CLN entails and it's full details. Thats the opposite of not pursuing it. So you should correct that statement."
Let me know if you have any further issues, happy to help [Post edited 20 Dec 2021 17:41]
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:40 - Dec 20 with 972 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:41 - Dec 20 by Chief |
For clarity, because you're obviously having trouble finding it, here's my response to the thread that you originally, erroneously posted on the poster of the year thread:
"And my response is:
- No you are way too down the road of hero worship to change now. Incredibly blinkered, this thread is testiment to that. Made s thread trying to further an agenda, backfired, now shy away from commenting on in fear of having to criticise the American owners. You say you're unique but my view remains the same too. This thread and the circumstances surrounding the CLN vindicate that.
- Well you need to criticise and pressurise the Americans into re-engaging then. The trust have put one hell of a lot of effort into this already, while the Americans promised they would re-engage out of court in their zoom call, but that hasn't happened. The onus is on them to fulfil that pledge to avert having have legal representation.
- Yes and the Americans should make the tough decision to cooperate with the trust. I know they like to think they're hard nosed seasoned campaigners but they're onto a loser. They need to swallow their pride and offer an alternative to court. They have taken a year (and still haven't) yet answered the trust's requests for information on the CLN, so i wouldn't throw stones about time scales if I were them.
- Easy thing to say but if the Americans sabotage the asset they'll have just increased their holding in, they're going to take even longer to return their initial outlay. The £60/70mill will be even further away. The best thing can do is grow up, take the hit, concentrate on getting back to the prem and they'll then own even more of a premier league club than had last time. They can then go down the Burnley route of they so wish. I'm told that realistically attainable and with inflation the Americans stand to make a fortune on their old and newly acquired shares.
- Well the Americans should convert it asap then. Been over a year now. And even without the trust (potentially) post court, there are shareholders to dilute. No skin of Silverstein's nose who he dilutes and gains cheap shares
- It would be a terrible business idea to deliberately plunge the club into debt. That'll could the club back further than its worth to pillage a quick £13million. And this is not a fact, although you state it as such. Have more faith in them Resloven. They have wealthy mates who'd jump at the chance at financing or part owning a football club that could soon get promoted and get Burnley cash.
- you take that up with the people that said that. The trust have never released a statement saying that. Although you have alluded to them taking club funds to finance their personal financial commitments. look within.
- the trust's narrative has always been to be weary of dilution. To suggest otherwise is a falicy. In theory they could be diluted down nothing. Unlikely, but even being diluted a little is not desirable.
- you are lying there. Blatently. If you aren't name your source. Because we know for a fact (that you have not disputed) that:
- They Trust were not invited to contribute to the CLN.
- The Trust were not adequately briefed on the CLN being released.
- The trust have requested clarification on what the CLN entails and it's full details. Thats the opposite of not pursuing it. So you should correct that statement."
Let me know if you have any further issues, happy to help [Post edited 20 Dec 2021 17:41]
|
The SCST have made it known they see their future outside the club having contacted legal people to help them. There seems little point in inviting them to invest while they are acting to divest I accept your point that they were not invited to join the CLN. Make a note of this point. I asked you to check it and you did.
The SCST also do not move quickly in negotiation and it may have been a practical decision to exclude them to enable fast processing of the CLN. Winter needed the money fast and got it from other owners. This may have been a consideration. Winter answered all questions in the structured dialogue.
Dilution is a consequence of investment by others. Investment is generally a good thing so dilution is a good thing as well. Its like going to the dentist. Dilution is unpleasant but so is going to the dentist. It is however necessary for overall health. Its part of life.
The SCST could have pocketed £5m in 2017 but could not make a deal. Investment of that £5m would avoid dilution to buy new shares or give them an annual income of £250,000 pa in interest. The SCST had choices as I understand it. Working together is good business.
The 21% holding was far too big for them to hold once the upward trajectory of the club 2002 -2015 stalled. The next step was Champions league and £150,000 a week players. Potentially ruinous for the club like the Perter Risdale era at Leeds.
Relegation and re setting was entirely predictable. The US people have managed the clubs affairs such that the club has no debts outside the CLN 4 years after relegation. This is largely from selling players from the academy set up by the selling shareholders. I applaud both the sellers and the US owners.
The US people appointed Winter and Scott who found Piroe, Patterson Downes and Obafemi for knockdown prices. These are assets that can be sold if and when required.
I believe the CLN will be used as a cash deposit in the club and will not be converted until all court matters are resolved. Outside creditors will cover the CLN in the event of a court loss.
The SCST control the future of the CLN. It is now time for decision. I continue to made a case against action simply to prevent money being paid to outside third party agencies in fees and commissions. I have very little support from people on this forum . I put this down to the fact they they do not understand what I am explaining.
The club will survive any court result but not without more hard medicine. The SCST will be done as far as the club is concerned in my view. A well meaning experiment that failed. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:43 - Dec 20 with 970 views | max936 |
This thread needs locking, 10 pages of pure crap. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:50 - Dec 20 with 968 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:43 - Dec 20 by max936 |
This thread needs locking, 10 pages of pure crap. |
Whats your favourite shirt over the last 25 years Max? Mine was the Gulf shirt. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:01 - Dec 20 with 962 views | max936 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:50 - Dec 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Whats your favourite shirt over the last 25 years Max? Mine was the Gulf shirt. |
Random as ever, turn the lap top off and go and play bingo. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:40 - Dec 20 with 946 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:40 - Dec 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The SCST have made it known they see their future outside the club having contacted legal people to help them. There seems little point in inviting them to invest while they are acting to divest I accept your point that they were not invited to join the CLN. Make a note of this point. I asked you to check it and you did.
The SCST also do not move quickly in negotiation and it may have been a practical decision to exclude them to enable fast processing of the CLN. Winter needed the money fast and got it from other owners. This may have been a consideration. Winter answered all questions in the structured dialogue.
Dilution is a consequence of investment by others. Investment is generally a good thing so dilution is a good thing as well. Its like going to the dentist. Dilution is unpleasant but so is going to the dentist. It is however necessary for overall health. Its part of life.
The SCST could have pocketed £5m in 2017 but could not make a deal. Investment of that £5m would avoid dilution to buy new shares or give them an annual income of £250,000 pa in interest. The SCST had choices as I understand it. Working together is good business.
The 21% holding was far too big for them to hold once the upward trajectory of the club 2002 -2015 stalled. The next step was Champions league and £150,000 a week players. Potentially ruinous for the club like the Perter Risdale era at Leeds.
Relegation and re setting was entirely predictable. The US people have managed the clubs affairs such that the club has no debts outside the CLN 4 years after relegation. This is largely from selling players from the academy set up by the selling shareholders. I applaud both the sellers and the US owners.
The US people appointed Winter and Scott who found Piroe, Patterson Downes and Obafemi for knockdown prices. These are assets that can be sold if and when required.
I believe the CLN will be used as a cash deposit in the club and will not be converted until all court matters are resolved. Outside creditors will cover the CLN in the event of a court loss.
The SCST control the future of the CLN. It is now time for decision. I continue to made a case against action simply to prevent money being paid to outside third party agencies in fees and commissions. I have very little support from people on this forum . I put this down to the fact they they do not understand what I am explaining.
The club will survive any court result but not without more hard medicine. The SCST will be done as far as the club is concerned in my view. A well meaning experiment that failed. |
Ok so you're not actually addressing my points, this is another random copy and paste monologue?
- yes certainly bookmarking it. However, they should still have asked, just out of courtesy and professionalism.
- No, they could have easily said that they were releasing a CLN and if you want to contribute, let us know by such and such date. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. So speed I'm sorry isn't a viable reason. It must have been in the pipeline for a while. K&L front up a large amount of people too, consulting with them probably took ages in itself. Yes he answered questions which only served to produce more questions.
- All depends how, why, when. The trust don't have the details despite requesting them, so naturally the default is apprehension. The trust understandably doesn't want to lose any percent and therefore value.
- they had choices but it's been confirmed by the trust chairman at the time of them, that none equalled the deal the sellouts got. I don't know why the hesitancy from the Americans not to match it, but the trust obviously believe they have a case to get it, so it's good business to pursue it. They have tried working together repeatedly. Take the CLN situation just recently. The trust requested information, it was ignored. It is a familiar pattern. The onus is now on the Americans to avoid court
- Not at all, it was perfectly fine and suitable in the premier league at the same level, it's perfectly fine for the Championship. And if the Americans had offered an equal deal the trust may not have that much of a holding (or have a case to go to court), so again, you're angst is misplaced once again.
- Yes, at time I think it's been more luck than judgement that so many inexperienced players did swim not sink, but the proof is in the pudding. Despite some very questionable decisions and actions keeping debt down has been one of their plus points. Although I won't lose sight that the club currently owe £13million out and have just today for some reason given up some of the Rodon sale proceeds for fast access. So let's not get too carried away.
- Yes they also appointed Bradley, Altman, Pearlman, Potters recruitment guy who brought in John, McKay, Asoro.... Hopefully lessons have been learnt. Although Scott's gone and Winter's been on the surface of it partially sidelined?
- I doubt it. You make it out that the CLN is keeping the club afloat and we're 16th. If they remove it and get a replacement loan (some posters say better rates are / have been available anyway) then fine. What's the problem? If the replace it with a loan that has a terrible rate or repayment deal then that will handicap the club - the asset they'll by that point own 80% of and will have paid £80 odd million for. So they'll be recovering 5 mill and potentially worsening our league position, drifting further from getting anywhere near their initial 60odd mill. It'll make no sense at all. Silverstein of course has zero reason to remove his loan. It's squarely in his interest to keep his hands on Championship priced shares.
- No they do not. They aren't involved in it. Whether the Americans want to intentionally and knowingly sabotage the club they own is their business. These people have vast funds beyond the loan they've given Swansea City. Everyone understands what you are saying, but probably realise the whole reason that legal representation is required is because of the Americans / sellouts wrongdoing and their continued lack of effort to avert court action. Most posters don't possess your level of bias and realise that if a QC endorses your case, you have been wronged.
- We're Swansea City, we're always going to have hard medicine. We've always sold and then bought cheaper. The times we haven't, the club has gone bust. There's a lot to be said for 'hard medicine' to be honest if it doesn't involve the club taking on debt or being reliant on sugar daddy owners.
- the trust Evidently and patently hasn't failed. Come on now, post sensibly. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:05 - Dec 20 with 929 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:40 - Dec 20 by Chief |
Ok so you're not actually addressing my points, this is another random copy and paste monologue?
- yes certainly bookmarking it. However, they should still have asked, just out of courtesy and professionalism.
- No, they could have easily said that they were releasing a CLN and if you want to contribute, let us know by such and such date. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. So speed I'm sorry isn't a viable reason. It must have been in the pipeline for a while. K&L front up a large amount of people too, consulting with them probably took ages in itself. Yes he answered questions which only served to produce more questions.
- All depends how, why, when. The trust don't have the details despite requesting them, so naturally the default is apprehension. The trust understandably doesn't want to lose any percent and therefore value.
- they had choices but it's been confirmed by the trust chairman at the time of them, that none equalled the deal the sellouts got. I don't know why the hesitancy from the Americans not to match it, but the trust obviously believe they have a case to get it, so it's good business to pursue it. They have tried working together repeatedly. Take the CLN situation just recently. The trust requested information, it was ignored. It is a familiar pattern. The onus is now on the Americans to avoid court
- Not at all, it was perfectly fine and suitable in the premier league at the same level, it's perfectly fine for the Championship. And if the Americans had offered an equal deal the trust may not have that much of a holding (or have a case to go to court), so again, you're angst is misplaced once again.
- Yes, at time I think it's been more luck than judgement that so many inexperienced players did swim not sink, but the proof is in the pudding. Despite some very questionable decisions and actions keeping debt down has been one of their plus points. Although I won't lose sight that the club currently owe £13million out and have just today for some reason given up some of the Rodon sale proceeds for fast access. So let's not get too carried away.
- Yes they also appointed Bradley, Altman, Pearlman, Potters recruitment guy who brought in John, McKay, Asoro.... Hopefully lessons have been learnt. Although Scott's gone and Winter's been on the surface of it partially sidelined?
- I doubt it. You make it out that the CLN is keeping the club afloat and we're 16th. If they remove it and get a replacement loan (some posters say better rates are / have been available anyway) then fine. What's the problem? If the replace it with a loan that has a terrible rate or repayment deal then that will handicap the club - the asset they'll by that point own 80% of and will have paid £80 odd million for. So they'll be recovering 5 mill and potentially worsening our league position, drifting further from getting anywhere near their initial 60odd mill. It'll make no sense at all. Silverstein of course has zero reason to remove his loan. It's squarely in his interest to keep his hands on Championship priced shares.
- No they do not. They aren't involved in it. Whether the Americans want to intentionally and knowingly sabotage the club they own is their business. These people have vast funds beyond the loan they've given Swansea City. Everyone understands what you are saying, but probably realise the whole reason that legal representation is required is because of the Americans / sellouts wrongdoing and their continued lack of effort to avert court action. Most posters don't possess your level of bias and realise that if a QC endorses your case, you have been wronged.
- We're Swansea City, we're always going to have hard medicine. We've always sold and then bought cheaper. The times we haven't, the club has gone bust. There's a lot to be said for 'hard medicine' to be honest if it doesn't involve the club taking on debt or being reliant on sugar daddy owners.
- the trust Evidently and patently hasn't failed. Come on now, post sensibly. |
I cannot work out what subjects you are talking about so I doubt anyone else can either.
The US people are not going to issue new shares if they have to buy the SCST shares. This means debt for the club in the event of a loss in court.
The SCST shares were worth £21m in 2016. £8m at today's value. The difference is £13m This is the value of the CLN as given by Winter in the Structural dialogue. The US investors buy the SCST shares at current value £8m and recover the CLN £13m job done .
Winners the funders +£7m, SCST +£6m Losers the club -£13m (the CLN) .
US people neutral Welsh sellers neutral.
The club recovers the £13m by selling Piroe, Downdes and Ntcham.
The English are the biggest winners. If that is what the members want crack on. I simply make things understandable and argue against it but have no support. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:27 - Dec 20 with 922 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:05 - Dec 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I cannot work out what subjects you are talking about so I doubt anyone else can either.
The US people are not going to issue new shares if they have to buy the SCST shares. This means debt for the club in the event of a loss in court.
The SCST shares were worth £21m in 2016. £8m at today's value. The difference is £13m This is the value of the CLN as given by Winter in the Structural dialogue. The US investors buy the SCST shares at current value £8m and recover the CLN £13m job done .
Winners the funders +£7m, SCST +£6m Losers the club -£13m (the CLN) .
US people neutral Welsh sellers neutral.
The club recovers the £13m by selling Piroe, Downdes and Ntcham.
The English are the biggest winners. If that is what the members want crack on. I simply make things understandable and argue against it but have no support. |
- Which bits are you finding difficult to understand?
- Why not? There are other shareholders to dilute and Silverstein has an agreement in place for Championship priced shares if and when he feels like converting. It doesn't mean debt for the club because the club isn't being to court.
- Winter is on about increasing the CLN so that blows this £13mill correlation theory out of the water. As above, Silverstein is not going to liable for paying anything so he's not going to take out his chance of buying shares to buy more expensive ones. This guy is 'steeped' in business remember.
- if the club sells Piroe, Downes and Ntcham we could well get relegated. The Swans in league 1 will be worth nothing compared to what it was. So it's illogical. These are businessmen. They aren't going to ruin the club that they paid 80mill for the sake of getting back a comparatively measly £5mill. They have other wealth. You should have more faith in them.
- Well it seems the Americans want the English to win. The trust have tried to avoid court repeatedly. The Americans promised they would re-engage. They haven't so they're obviously hell bent on giving the legal profession a payday. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:57 - Dec 21 with 854 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:27 - Dec 20 by Chief |
- Which bits are you finding difficult to understand?
- Why not? There are other shareholders to dilute and Silverstein has an agreement in place for Championship priced shares if and when he feels like converting. It doesn't mean debt for the club because the club isn't being to court.
- Winter is on about increasing the CLN so that blows this £13mill correlation theory out of the water. As above, Silverstein is not going to liable for paying anything so he's not going to take out his chance of buying shares to buy more expensive ones. This guy is 'steeped' in business remember.
- if the club sells Piroe, Downes and Ntcham we could well get relegated. The Swans in league 1 will be worth nothing compared to what it was. So it's illogical. These are businessmen. They aren't going to ruin the club that they paid 80mill for the sake of getting back a comparatively measly £5mill. They have other wealth. You should have more faith in them.
- Well it seems the Americans want the English to win. The trust have tried to avoid court repeatedly. The Americans promised they would re-engage. They haven't so they're obviously hell bent on giving the legal profession a payday. |
The correlation theory stands. There is enough cash in the convertible loan note to pay off the SCST if necessary. This would be money destined to go to the club. They are in fact spending it now. Silverstein and the others can buy new shares and dilute the SCST or buy the SCST shares. In my opinion they will not do both. This is why the loan is left open.
The SCST shares might be more expensive. However if the case goes badly conceivably they might be sold at current value. It is a huge risk for the SCST to take in my view. You like them appear to love a gamble. Any cautious body would have made selling shares and downsizing their risk a priority after 2013. The SCST failed to take advice after 2011 and the enormous valuation. 25% holding was the strategy (a bad strategy) and they were £4m short. About £4000 per member.
The SCST must accept a win in court will most probably have negative short to medium term effects on the club. I expect the club to drip feed out this concept in forth coming statements.
Selling players is nothing new to Swansea city. If Piroe goes then Obafemi and Cullen will be thrown in sink or swim. There is also the loan market.
I suspect because there was no arbitration the judge will decide a clean break is required. All that is to be decided is the divorce settlement. This is my gut feeling I am not a legal person.
In my opinion member have a very poor grasp of the issues and actually do not want the SCST to leave the club. I do not think the average member wants to give the club problems. Those members should start calling the SCST strategy in for a closer inspection and making the leadership accountable. They need the input of a management consultant to determine a sensible strategy within the constraints of the constitution. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:40 - Dec 21 with 842 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:57 - Dec 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The correlation theory stands. There is enough cash in the convertible loan note to pay off the SCST if necessary. This would be money destined to go to the club. They are in fact spending it now. Silverstein and the others can buy new shares and dilute the SCST or buy the SCST shares. In my opinion they will not do both. This is why the loan is left open.
The SCST shares might be more expensive. However if the case goes badly conceivably they might be sold at current value. It is a huge risk for the SCST to take in my view. You like them appear to love a gamble. Any cautious body would have made selling shares and downsizing their risk a priority after 2013. The SCST failed to take advice after 2011 and the enormous valuation. 25% holding was the strategy (a bad strategy) and they were £4m short. About £4000 per member.
The SCST must accept a win in court will most probably have negative short to medium term effects on the club. I expect the club to drip feed out this concept in forth coming statements.
Selling players is nothing new to Swansea city. If Piroe goes then Obafemi and Cullen will be thrown in sink or swim. There is also the loan market.
I suspect because there was no arbitration the judge will decide a clean break is required. All that is to be decided is the divorce settlement. This is my gut feeling I am not a legal person.
In my opinion member have a very poor grasp of the issues and actually do not want the SCST to leave the club. I do not think the average member wants to give the club problems. Those members should start calling the SCST strategy in for a closer inspection and making the leadership accountable. They need the input of a management consultant to determine a sensible strategy within the constraints of the constitution. |
- The correlation theory is patently on an unsound footing for several reasons: 1. Only around £7mill of the loan is from parties involved in the case. 2. £7mill or £13mill won't cover £21mill and 3. Winter is talking about a new or increased CLN beyond £13mill. I think there's a good chance a lot of this has already been spent personally so the club has had it already. Silverstein can dilute and have cheaper shares and the Americans could have to buy the trust's. Which is deserving, Silverstein in fairness is an innocent party. The loan in my opinion is left open for the loaners reasons. I have absolutely no doubt it would have been converted by at least Silverstein had we beaten Brentford.
- That's not a realistic outcome. It doesn't remedy the situation in the trust's favour at all, a better reward would be to keep the status quo, where at some point the trust could sell at a higher price than the current market value. It's not going to happen sorry. Theres not a large gamble here, you Judy enjoy painting it as such. If the trust lose, they'll still retain a large shareholding. To hold onto shares and sell them at premier league prices 4 years after being relegated from the prem is fantastic business but you'd never admit it.
- as I've explained to repeatedly to which you have no answer, a negative affect on the club is a negative affect on the Americans' investment. They don't have to inflict this negativity on the club though, so they probably won't. Nor will the club admit as such.
- exactly, we've always sold players. If the case makes the club become a more sustainable entity, that's a positive.
- the judge will know however that the trust did instigate mediation that the individuals in the case declined to participate in. The rest I don't know what you're getting at. It is likely that the judge could order the Americans to buy all the trust's holding yes. The judge won't be able to order that the trust never has any involvement in the club again however.
- that entirely untrue, the trust has been very clear about the potential outcomes all along and the vote still went the way it did. I've been debating this with you for ages in this public forum and it always revolves around the trust selling their shares. Everyone is aware of this. And no they don't want to cause the club problems and logic says this action won't. The constraints of supporters trust regulations are already well known. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:23 - Dec 21 with 834 views | Chief |
And what's also bring ignored / neglected in all this by you is the role the sellouts in court They aren't being summoned as witnesses, they are going in as defendants.
We've both openly discussed the potential eventuality of a trust win in court, but you only ever focus on sanctions for the buyers. The sellouts in my eyes are at least equally complicit, so I don't see how the sellouts will just walk away with no punishment. I have no idea what that maybe, but maybe damages that could be awarded to the trust. And in my mind there's definitely the possibility of an American counter claim against them if it comes out that they sold their shares without providing the full picture to the Americans - which is what the Americans have publically claimed. [Post edited 21 Dec 2021 19:46]
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:24 - Dec 21 with 822 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:40 - Dec 21 by Chief |
- The correlation theory is patently on an unsound footing for several reasons: 1. Only around £7mill of the loan is from parties involved in the case. 2. £7mill or £13mill won't cover £21mill and 3. Winter is talking about a new or increased CLN beyond £13mill. I think there's a good chance a lot of this has already been spent personally so the club has had it already. Silverstein can dilute and have cheaper shares and the Americans could have to buy the trust's. Which is deserving, Silverstein in fairness is an innocent party. The loan in my opinion is left open for the loaners reasons. I have absolutely no doubt it would have been converted by at least Silverstein had we beaten Brentford.
- That's not a realistic outcome. It doesn't remedy the situation in the trust's favour at all, a better reward would be to keep the status quo, where at some point the trust could sell at a higher price than the current market value. It's not going to happen sorry. Theres not a large gamble here, you Judy enjoy painting it as such. If the trust lose, they'll still retain a large shareholding. To hold onto shares and sell them at premier league prices 4 years after being relegated from the prem is fantastic business but you'd never admit it.
- as I've explained to repeatedly to which you have no answer, a negative affect on the club is a negative affect on the Americans' investment. They don't have to inflict this negativity on the club though, so they probably won't. Nor will the club admit as such.
- exactly, we've always sold players. If the case makes the club become a more sustainable entity, that's a positive.
- the judge will know however that the trust did instigate mediation that the individuals in the case declined to participate in. The rest I don't know what you're getting at. It is likely that the judge could order the Americans to buy all the trust's holding yes. The judge won't be able to order that the trust never has any involvement in the club again however.
- that entirely untrue, the trust has been very clear about the potential outcomes all along and the vote still went the way it did. I've been debating this with you for ages in this public forum and it always revolves around the trust selling their shares. Everyone is aware of this. And no they don't want to cause the club problems and logic says this action won't. The constraints of supporters trust regulations are already well known. |
The time has come for the supporters Trust to leave Swansea city for good. Going to court is an admission that the constitution of having a fans body in the club does not work in south Wales. It works in Germany but not here. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:59 - Dec 21 with 816 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:24 - Dec 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The time has come for the supporters Trust to leave Swansea city for good. Going to court is an admission that the constitution of having a fans body in the club does not work in south Wales. It works in Germany but not here. |
- You can't make a sweeping statement like "time to leave Swansea City for good". You have absolutely no idea what the landscape will look like in future and when the trust will be needed to step in.
- And the opposite - having a Supporters trust with the balls&power to go against owners who have wronged them is s complete validation and vindication of the role of a supporters trust.
- The model evidently works - the proof is there - involvement right from the deepest depths to the club's pinnacle. It's under foreign ownership who think that they can ignore the supporters that has coincided with a downturn in the fortunes on the pitch.
- this post then must mean you've changed your mind and want a trust win in court then. A loss will guarantee the trust retaining a shareholding. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:36 - Dec 21 with 807 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:59 - Dec 21 by Chief |
- You can't make a sweeping statement like "time to leave Swansea City for good". You have absolutely no idea what the landscape will look like in future and when the trust will be needed to step in.
- And the opposite - having a Supporters trust with the balls&power to go against owners who have wronged them is s complete validation and vindication of the role of a supporters trust.
- The model evidently works - the proof is there - involvement right from the deepest depths to the club's pinnacle. It's under foreign ownership who think that they can ignore the supporters that has coincided with a downturn in the fortunes on the pitch.
- this post then must mean you've changed your mind and want a trust win in court then. A loss will guarantee the trust retaining a shareholding. |
""A loss will guarantee the trust retaining a shareholding."" Where did you get that from? I expect a clean divorce. The parties could not even arbitrate. The judge might see a 'broken marriage' that needs terminating.
The ideal scenario is the SCST drop the case and allow the convertible loan note to be converted. They should be eating a curry with Silverstein right now and using his expertise to help them make big money and make sound investments. He has the expertise and world class knowledge to help them. He also has the interpersonal skill to develop friendships and trust. He can also put them in touch with people who can help them develop and grow.
SCST should reject the small town politics and jealousies of the past and concentrate on business development by employing a business consultant to investigate how they can move the Trust forward. The finding should be presented to the members. They should have a far greater charitable footprint. They will need to sign a tag on agreement guaranteeing them the same price per shares as the other sellers. This is a reformed progressive SCST. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:17 - Dec 21 with 789 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:36 - Dec 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
""A loss will guarantee the trust retaining a shareholding."" Where did you get that from? I expect a clean divorce. The parties could not even arbitrate. The judge might see a 'broken marriage' that needs terminating.
The ideal scenario is the SCST drop the case and allow the convertible loan note to be converted. They should be eating a curry with Silverstein right now and using his expertise to help them make big money and make sound investments. He has the expertise and world class knowledge to help them. He also has the interpersonal skill to develop friendships and trust. He can also put them in touch with people who can help them develop and grow.
SCST should reject the small town politics and jealousies of the past and concentrate on business development by employing a business consultant to investigate how they can move the Trust forward. The finding should be presented to the members. They should have a far greater charitable footprint. They will need to sign a tag on agreement guaranteeing them the same price per shares as the other sellers. This is a reformed progressive SCST. |
- the trust are not the defendants so I believe they cannot be sanctioned anything more than potentially paying costs. So they'll still hold the shareholding in the event of a loss. What are actually suggesting then? The judge will order the trust to surrender their shares or something? On what grounds?
- Silverstein isn't the problem - he has no shareholding&has no involvement in the case. This explains why despite the trust reportedly having a decent day to day working relationship with him , the shareholding issue isn't resolved or seemingly got any nearer being resolved. Not sure why Silverstein would care or go to the trouble of doing anything like that. Noticeable that this completely contradicts your previously point. You've desperately swung from 'terminating the broken marriage' to the trust trying to suck up to directors by 'eating a curry' with them. You're back to the tactic of throwing a lot of cachu at a wall and hoping it sticks. No matter how diametrically opposed the turds are.
- Methodically pursuing a legal remedy and bringing a case against a resourceful and international entity to potentially gain a highly lucrative reward is the very antithesis of 'small town politics'. Also doing so is the very embodiment of concentrating on business and broadening their horizons. £21mill presents possibilities that 800k in an instant access account cannot. With this fund a far larger footprint would be possible. Not that don't already do a lot already (another example of cachu throwing from you they remark is).
- a tag on agreement is only possible with agreement from both parties. The clue is in the name. The Americans haven't been upfront with the trust on the purchase, the CLN and also negotiations to remedy the shareholding issue, so this really isn't a realistic thing to expect. I don't see what's it's in for the Americans, why would they bother with one? They evidently don't value agreements between shareholders much anyway! | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:40 - Dec 22 with 727 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:17 - Dec 21 by Chief |
- the trust are not the defendants so I believe they cannot be sanctioned anything more than potentially paying costs. So they'll still hold the shareholding in the event of a loss. What are actually suggesting then? The judge will order the trust to surrender their shares or something? On what grounds?
- Silverstein isn't the problem - he has no shareholding&has no involvement in the case. This explains why despite the trust reportedly having a decent day to day working relationship with him , the shareholding issue isn't resolved or seemingly got any nearer being resolved. Not sure why Silverstein would care or go to the trouble of doing anything like that. Noticeable that this completely contradicts your previously point. You've desperately swung from 'terminating the broken marriage' to the trust trying to suck up to directors by 'eating a curry' with them. You're back to the tactic of throwing a lot of cachu at a wall and hoping it sticks. No matter how diametrically opposed the turds are.
- Methodically pursuing a legal remedy and bringing a case against a resourceful and international entity to potentially gain a highly lucrative reward is the very antithesis of 'small town politics'. Also doing so is the very embodiment of concentrating on business and broadening their horizons. £21mill presents possibilities that 800k in an instant access account cannot. With this fund a far larger footprint would be possible. Not that don't already do a lot already (another example of cachu throwing from you they remark is).
- a tag on agreement is only possible with agreement from both parties. The clue is in the name. The Americans haven't been upfront with the trust on the purchase, the CLN and also negotiations to remedy the shareholding issue, so this really isn't a realistic thing to expect. I don't see what's it's in for the Americans, why would they bother with one? They evidently don't value agreements between shareholders much anyway! |
As far I understand the SCST want to leave the club and force the other buyers to buy their shares art a high price.
This is presumably the Judges understanding too. He will review that matter and assume that
- the SCST want to leave ,
- the members want them to leave,
- the sellers want them to leave.
- the US shareholders want them to leave.
- arbitration never got underway suggesting a breakdown.
The Judge will want to release the SCST from owning club shares and give his verdict on the price. Win or lose I suspect the SCST will be going. Its what everyone wants (except me). | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:58 - Dec 22 with 720 views | max936 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:40 - Dec 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As far I understand the SCST want to leave the club and force the other buyers to buy their shares art a high price.
This is presumably the Judges understanding too. He will review that matter and assume that
- the SCST want to leave ,
- the members want them to leave,
- the sellers want them to leave.
- the US shareholders want them to leave.
- arbitration never got underway suggesting a breakdown.
The Judge will want to release the SCST from owning club shares and give his verdict on the price. Win or lose I suspect the SCST will be going. Its what everyone wants (except me). |
Except you, that's a joke, all you've done for months on end is say that the SCST need to leave the club and for good, arbitration never got underway because your mates and the yanks weren't interested, you won't see that though as it doesn't suit your argument.
Why would the Swans supporters club want to leave the club, but you don't get the meaning of a supporters trust though, you think its a bunch of little grubby old men sitting in a corner of a pub, thinking of ways to screw the club over. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:03 - Dec 22 with 717 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:40 - Dec 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As far I understand the SCST want to leave the club and force the other buyers to buy their shares art a high price.
This is presumably the Judges understanding too. He will review that matter and assume that
- the SCST want to leave ,
- the members want them to leave,
- the sellers want them to leave.
- the US shareholders want them to leave.
- arbitration never got underway suggesting a breakdown.
The Judge will want to release the SCST from owning club shares and give his verdict on the price. Win or lose I suspect the SCST will be going. Its what everyone wants (except me). |
- not necessarily, but it's a possible (if not likely outcome of the case). The members were aware of this prior to the vote.
- no, as above, it's just one of the many rulings that the judge can give following the hearing of the case.
So:
- SCST are aware that the verdict could result in the sale of shares.
- the members are aware that the verdict could result in the sale of shares.
- if wrongdoing is found and the 'win' it matters not 1 iota what the Americans and sellouts want. They are the defendants so it would be an extremely strange judge to give a ruling beneficial to the losing defendants! Come on now Resloven, not even you can believe this nonsense you're posting!
- the judge will be told that the trust arranged mediation but neither the sellouts nor Americans agreed to attend in person. So even less likely that the judge will provide those parties with something they'd want in the event of them 'losing' the case.
- The judge will rule based on the facts of the sale on the case brought by the Trust as plaintiffs. The judge does not have the power to sanction a plaintiff beyond possibly ordering costs payment. The judge isn't there to rule on the relationship between the parties, they don't care. So if the trust lose, the judge can't order them to lose shares or order them to leave the club. Simply not in the judge's remit.
I knew you had some out there ideas but your view on this is an eye opener. Staggering lack of knowledge. You've surprised me. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:10 - Dec 22 with 714 views | max936 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:03 - Dec 22 by Chief |
- not necessarily, but it's a possible (if not likely outcome of the case). The members were aware of this prior to the vote.
- no, as above, it's just one of the many rulings that the judge can give following the hearing of the case.
So:
- SCST are aware that the verdict could result in the sale of shares.
- the members are aware that the verdict could result in the sale of shares.
- if wrongdoing is found and the 'win' it matters not 1 iota what the Americans and sellouts want. They are the defendants so it would be an extremely strange judge to give a ruling beneficial to the losing defendants! Come on now Resloven, not even you can believe this nonsense you're posting!
- the judge will be told that the trust arranged mediation but neither the sellouts nor Americans agreed to attend in person. So even less likely that the judge will provide those parties with something they'd want in the event of them 'losing' the case.
- The judge will rule based on the facts of the sale on the case brought by the Trust as plaintiffs. The judge does not have the power to sanction a plaintiff beyond possibly ordering costs payment. The judge isn't there to rule on the relationship between the parties, they don't care. So if the trust lose, the judge can't order them to lose shares or order them to leave the club. Simply not in the judge's remit.
I knew you had some out there ideas but your view on this is an eye opener. Staggering lack of knowledge. You've surprised me. |
I knew you had some out there ideas but your view on this is an eye opener. Staggering lack of knowledge. You've surprised me."
He's never surprised me, he just waffles on and on and on, tying himself up in knots, most this thread should be put in the archives under the headline, Baffling Nonsense. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:15 - Dec 22 with 713 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:10 - Dec 22 by max936 |
I knew you had some out there ideas but your view on this is an eye opener. Staggering lack of knowledge. You've surprised me."
He's never surprised me, he just waffles on and on and on, tying himself up in knots, most this thread should be put in the archives under the headline, Baffling Nonsense. |
Yea but their views are usually extremely slanted, biased or fantasy.
This one about the judge placing sanctions on the trust is nigh on impossible. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.