| More information on the Convertible Loan note 19:41 - Dec 3 with 12692 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 17:04 - Dec 5 with 1220 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:21 - Dec 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The US and other shareholders according to Winter have loaned up to £13m to the club. These are people you have little regard for judging by your posts. This is awkward for you as they are helping the club through the Covid crisis. They also decide things like the season ticket prices which is discounted at present by £1.7m to help the fans that stood by them. They are in my opinion decent people. I am alone in this theory it seems, but forums are hostile places more given to negativity than praise.
Within 5 years they plan to convert the loan and use the money to buy new shares according to Winter and Silverstein. If they lose the Court case as you expect, then they will (according to my theory) NOT buy 'new' shares but simply buy the Trust's shares instead. £21m. They will need another £8m to clear the debt at 2016 prices.
Because no new shares will be issued in this case, Winter will have a £13m debt after the CLN because he has already spent most of it, on Swans TV, relaying the pitch, painting the steel work and buying Piroe and Obafemi.
The US people know a lot of loaded US people who will help Winter get loan. It will probably be more than 5% regrettably. Winter can try local banks of course. The US people will also want the £8m back at some point presumably.
Its a lot for you to get your head around as I am conscious not all members and fans have had a good education.
Why is the Convertible loan note used not a simple loan? Why a 5 year period? . At some point Winter will declare the court case is a big problem for him and the club and the season ticket holders and possibly even the 300 staff. This is my opinion and not based on inside information. I do not know anyone in the club at all. [Post edited 5 Dec 2021 16:29]
|
Why would Silverstein decide to remove his £5mill plus loan which he can cash in to buy x amount of Championship priced shares....
But pay a premier league price for them? And therefore get a lot fewer shares for his 5mill?
Is he not a bright businessman? |  |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:14 - Dec 5 with 1198 views | max936 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:04 - Dec 5 by Chief |
Why would Silverstein decide to remove his £5mill plus loan which he can cash in to buy x amount of Championship priced shares....
But pay a premier league price for them? And therefore get a lot fewer shares for his 5mill?
Is he not a bright businessman? |
He might if Resolven is advising him.  |  | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:17 - Dec 5 with 1193 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:14 - Dec 5 by max936 |
He might if Resolven is advising him. |
Yea bizarre to think he'd randomly decide to pay another party's damages in a case he has no involvement in. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:28 - Dec 5 with 1187 views | max936 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:17 - Dec 5 by Chief |
Yea bizarre to think he'd randomly decide to pay another party's damages in a case he has no involvement in. |
This case has nothing to do with the club per se, the case is against the previous owners not the club, any costs or compensation won't cost the Club. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:38 - Dec 5 with 1181 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:28 - Dec 5 by max936 |
This case has nothing to do with the club per se, the case is against the previous owners not the club, any costs or compensation won't cost the Club. |
Exactly.
Same applies to Silverstein. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:05 - Dec 5 with 1171 views | Catullus |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 15:45 - Dec 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
What do you want to know?. I got the Convertible loan note interest from a forum post which had researched public records. It is 5% p.a.
The 0.15% earnings the Trust were getting from Santander was in the Public accounts given on the own website. The CLN pays 33 times more than Santander.
I suspect the Trust were offered the chance to join the CLN. There is no evidence they were excluded. One would think it would be a good idea to join it. Chief can make enquires as to why they did not join. (a simple phone call). If they missed out they my get s a second chance as Winter wants more US cash. Hope that helps. |
No evidence they were excluded but also no evidence they were invited. Or do you have evidence of any invite? No, as you say you "suspect" and you are again pushing your own guess as fact.
What are the trust rules about investment? Why is the CLN at 5% when market rates are lower? Barclays were charging 3.2% for personal loans just recently.
The trust is not taking the current owners to court so why would they be liable?
What you suspect is not fact, what you assume is not fact. Hope that helps. |  |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:08 - Dec 5 with 1164 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:05 - Dec 5 by Catullus |
No evidence they were excluded but also no evidence they were invited. Or do you have evidence of any invite? No, as you say you "suspect" and you are again pushing your own guess as fact.
What are the trust rules about investment? Why is the CLN at 5% when market rates are lower? Barclays were charging 3.2% for personal loans just recently.
The trust is not taking the current owners to court so why would they be liable?
What you suspect is not fact, what you assume is not fact. Hope that helps. |
The trust are taking the current AND previous owners to court. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:19 - Dec 5 with 1155 views | max936 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:05 - Dec 5 by Catullus |
No evidence they were excluded but also no evidence they were invited. Or do you have evidence of any invite? No, as you say you "suspect" and you are again pushing your own guess as fact.
What are the trust rules about investment? Why is the CLN at 5% when market rates are lower? Barclays were charging 3.2% for personal loans just recently.
The trust is not taking the current owners to court so why would they be liable?
What you suspect is not fact, what you assume is not fact. Hope that helps. |
Agenda Boy in he, but he clearly lacks the intelligence and education to hide that fact.
It's ironic that he suggests this "Its a lot for you to get your head around as I am conscious not all members and fans have had a good education." he needs to lookup the words Condescending, Hypocrite and Humility, the complete arse. [Post edited 5 Dec 2021 21:50]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:20 - Dec 5 with 1155 views | Catullus |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:08 - Dec 5 by Chief |
The trust are taking the current AND previous owners to court. |
I need to pay more attention then, because I thought they were taking the previous owners only to court.
I could try blaming an increasingly dodgy memory  | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:20 - Dec 5 with 1155 views | BillyChong |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:05 - Dec 5 by Catullus |
No evidence they were excluded but also no evidence they were invited. Or do you have evidence of any invite? No, as you say you "suspect" and you are again pushing your own guess as fact.
What are the trust rules about investment? Why is the CLN at 5% when market rates are lower? Barclays were charging 3.2% for personal loans just recently.
The trust is not taking the current owners to court so why would they be liable?
What you suspect is not fact, what you assume is not fact. Hope that helps. |
Exactly. Silverstein hasn’t invested in the club, he’s loaned funds at a high interest rate. It’s a debt. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:06 - Dec 5 with 1125 views | Catullus |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:29 - Dec 5 by Chief |
Yes and I don't think the court ruling and resultant outcomes that Resloven keeps regurgitating are a foregone conclusion either.
The Americans have gone on record to state that they weren't aware that there was a shareholders agreement. Meaning that the people they bought their shares off can't have disclosed it's existence......
So it's possible in my opinion that the Americans won't be forced to buy the trust's shares if they genuinely weren't aware of any agreement. They are also on record stating they were told to exclude the trust, and the highly publicised doctoring of meeting minutes& attempts to invalidate the SHA.
In what predicament that then leaves the sellers in
....only the judge can decide. [Post edited 5 Dec 2021 18:47]
|
That is exactly the point of the argument and the whole reason for the case. The previous owners lied, kept secrets, denied the trust the option and walked away with a lot of money.
I had no problem with them selling up and getting millions but I had a big problem with how they did it.
I have said before I think they cheated the new owners too; I think the new owners thought they were getting a club in much better shape than it truly was. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:30 - Dec 5 with 1118 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:06 - Dec 5 by Catullus |
That is exactly the point of the argument and the whole reason for the case. The previous owners lied, kept secrets, denied the trust the option and walked away with a lot of money.
I had no problem with them selling up and getting millions but I had a big problem with how they did it.
I have said before I think they cheated the new owners too; I think the new owners thought they were getting a club in much better shape than it truly was. |
*Allegedly.
But yes I don't think it's going to be as simple as the Americans buying the trust's shares and the sellouts walking away scott-free. Even it means a follow on case relating to the shares being sold under false pretences. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 15:47 - Dec 6 with 1048 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:30 - Dec 5 by Chief |
*Allegedly.
But yes I don't think it's going to be as simple as the Americans buying the trust's shares and the sellouts walking away scott-free. Even it means a follow on case relating to the shares being sold under false pretences. |
Do you really think the US people will bother going after their investment partners and sponsors, (The only local business man willing to sponsor the stadium for 10 years? ).
They are business partners who work together. The CLN will be used to pay the SCST bill in the event of a court win for the SCST in my opinion. You call it theft for some reason. You cannot steal your own money. This will convert into CLUB DEBT. The US people will line up another club loan in the event of a court loss.
It is leverage. Debt means players sold, Season tickets rising (already subsidised to the tune of £1.7m) and possible job losses. (What the US people call hard medicine). Its logical if the fans cause the club problems then the fans (customer) need to share the pain. Most business coming back from Covid have hiked prices. Swansea city have cut them.
I expect the Club to point out these hard facts and request that the SCST hold another vote to verify the decision . Lots of things have happened since the sale. The world has changed a lot in 6 years.
Hypothetically Silverstein will get his shares and a percentage of the club by buying the SCST shares with his £5m. That is £5m off the £21m bill. He will get them at the championship price of course. Its is just a bit of mathematics.
The whole idea of suing the US people in the hope they will go after the sellers is not likely to happen. Small town politics at work. Swansea city is a global brand and deserve better fan ownership thinking. Thankfully there are fresh peple in the SCST who might be able to see the big picture.
Burnley as sold for £200m last season and since then big Arab money has come into the Premier league. [Post edited 6 Dec 2021 15:52]
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:57 - Dec 6 with 1034 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 15:47 - Dec 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Do you really think the US people will bother going after their investment partners and sponsors, (The only local business man willing to sponsor the stadium for 10 years? ).
They are business partners who work together. The CLN will be used to pay the SCST bill in the event of a court win for the SCST in my opinion. You call it theft for some reason. You cannot steal your own money. This will convert into CLUB DEBT. The US people will line up another club loan in the event of a court loss.
It is leverage. Debt means players sold, Season tickets rising (already subsidised to the tune of £1.7m) and possible job losses. (What the US people call hard medicine). Its logical if the fans cause the club problems then the fans (customer) need to share the pain. Most business coming back from Covid have hiked prices. Swansea city have cut them.
I expect the Club to point out these hard facts and request that the SCST hold another vote to verify the decision . Lots of things have happened since the sale. The world has changed a lot in 6 years.
Hypothetically Silverstein will get his shares and a percentage of the club by buying the SCST shares with his £5m. That is £5m off the £21m bill. He will get them at the championship price of course. Its is just a bit of mathematics.
The whole idea of suing the US people in the hope they will go after the sellers is not likely to happen. Small town politics at work. Swansea city is a global brand and deserve better fan ownership thinking. Thankfully there are fresh peple in the SCST who might be able to see the big picture.
Burnley as sold for £200m last season and since then big Arab money has come into the Premier league. [Post edited 6 Dec 2021 15:52]
|
Yes, why not? If they were conned into buying the shares and it's proven as such in court, absolutely. How much is Morgan contributing in sponsoring (for which he'll have a contract for doing so)? Nominal compared to the bill the Americans could soon receive.
Business partners fall out all the time. To say that these parties whom we know are capable of being devious if there's cash involved won't is extremely niave.
The rest is usual generic waffle. Everything there has been addressed repeatedly on other threads. Pointless replying. There's numerous of my posts that can count as replies to that.
***Anyone have Burnley in the Resloven cachu sweepstake???***
Please step forward and collect your winnings. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:14 - Dec 6 with 1025 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:57 - Dec 6 by Chief |
Yes, why not? If they were conned into buying the shares and it's proven as such in court, absolutely. How much is Morgan contributing in sponsoring (for which he'll have a contract for doing so)? Nominal compared to the bill the Americans could soon receive.
Business partners fall out all the time. To say that these parties whom we know are capable of being devious if there's cash involved won't is extremely niave.
The rest is usual generic waffle. Everything there has been addressed repeatedly on other threads. Pointless replying. There's numerous of my posts that can count as replies to that.
***Anyone have Burnley in the Resloven cachu sweepstake???***
Please step forward and collect your winnings. |
I have given you the bad news. The US people Silverstein and the remaining sellers are partners.
As I pointed out to you it looks as it the remaining sellers joined the Convertible loan note investment and one seller is sponsoring the stadium on a 10 year deal. I have never heard of people taking their own sponsors to court.
It is likely the SCST were also invited to join the investment but this is speculation. They were able to avoid dilution had they played the hand properly.
The US people show no sign of regret at buying Swansea. If they can take the club back the Premier leagues they will double their money. Slverstein will make £20m profit. He will have to work for it like finding a buyer.
They are confident people. Winter has chaired a club to the PL and so has Huw Jenkins. The expertise in in house and Silverstein loves a challenge.
The SCST will go down in history as a complete failure if they bale out just as the going got tough. I am hopeful the new SCST will look beyond small town politics and start working together. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:01 - Dec 6 with 1010 views | Catullus |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:14 - Dec 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have given you the bad news. The US people Silverstein and the remaining sellers are partners.
As I pointed out to you it looks as it the remaining sellers joined the Convertible loan note investment and one seller is sponsoring the stadium on a 10 year deal. I have never heard of people taking their own sponsors to court.
It is likely the SCST were also invited to join the investment but this is speculation. They were able to avoid dilution had they played the hand properly.
The US people show no sign of regret at buying Swansea. If they can take the club back the Premier leagues they will double their money. Slverstein will make £20m profit. He will have to work for it like finding a buyer.
They are confident people. Winter has chaired a club to the PL and so has Huw Jenkins. The expertise in in house and Silverstein loves a challenge.
The SCST will go down in history as a complete failure if they bale out just as the going got tough. I am hopeful the new SCST will look beyond small town politics and start working together. |
Because business partners have never turned on each other? Business partners have never shafted each other?
https://www.businessinsider.co | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:28 - Dec 6 with 1004 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:14 - Dec 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have given you the bad news. The US people Silverstein and the remaining sellers are partners.
As I pointed out to you it looks as it the remaining sellers joined the Convertible loan note investment and one seller is sponsoring the stadium on a 10 year deal. I have never heard of people taking their own sponsors to court.
It is likely the SCST were also invited to join the investment but this is speculation. They were able to avoid dilution had they played the hand properly.
The US people show no sign of regret at buying Swansea. If they can take the club back the Premier leagues they will double their money. Slverstein will make £20m profit. He will have to work for it like finding a buyer.
They are confident people. Winter has chaired a club to the PL and so has Huw Jenkins. The expertise in in house and Silverstein loves a challenge.
The SCST will go down in history as a complete failure if they bale out just as the going got tough. I am hopeful the new SCST will look beyond small town politics and start working together. |
Yes, partners which at some point it could be proven that they screwed over during the purchase. The Trust and sellouts were 'partners'. When theres money and shenanigans involved, it means nothing. And the Americans don't / shouldn't need the sellouts. And I don't see why they would if it transpires they kept the Americans in the dark regarding long standing obligations.
That sponsor will have signed a contract that they won't be able to get out of no matter what the outcome of the case is or what truths emerge. You seem to omit that the Americans have already taken their 'partners' to court in the shape of the council, with whom there's also a contract.
The links telling you that the CLN was announced before the trust knew the discussions were over. Read what was released at the time, everything points to the trust not being asked, just being told that Silverstein was 'investing' (loaning). As you keep ignoring, there was never any mention of any other shareholder being involved or being asked to be involved. So you're warped slanted viewpoint I suppose, but there's no indication the trust were asked.
Well they aren't going to publicly announce they aren't happy, but the facts are that their investment is worth a lot less than when they bought it. Tellingly they only really broke cover when we were riding high last season with zero visits to Swansea since relegation. The CLN seems like a salvage measure to me rather than gushing enthusiasm. Again, contrast to the Wrexham owners who seem genuinely delighted to be involved with their club.
Yes they sacked Huw from the role. After he defied them over the Dan James affair. Huw didn't attend another board meeting for years (he may still haven't).
A body who was set up and helped the club in the darkest of hours, was present and contributing throughout the club's the brightest period, then seeks out a large fund to help safeguard the club's future sounds like a fantastic legacy to me.
"No mark up of that magnitude can ever be considered a bad deal" (Resloven 2020) [Post edited 6 Dec 2021 18:31]
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:51 - Dec 6 with 965 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:28 - Dec 6 by Chief |
Yes, partners which at some point it could be proven that they screwed over during the purchase. The Trust and sellouts were 'partners'. When theres money and shenanigans involved, it means nothing. And the Americans don't / shouldn't need the sellouts. And I don't see why they would if it transpires they kept the Americans in the dark regarding long standing obligations.
That sponsor will have signed a contract that they won't be able to get out of no matter what the outcome of the case is or what truths emerge. You seem to omit that the Americans have already taken their 'partners' to court in the shape of the council, with whom there's also a contract.
The links telling you that the CLN was announced before the trust knew the discussions were over. Read what was released at the time, everything points to the trust not being asked, just being told that Silverstein was 'investing' (loaning). As you keep ignoring, there was never any mention of any other shareholder being involved or being asked to be involved. So you're warped slanted viewpoint I suppose, but there's no indication the trust were asked.
Well they aren't going to publicly announce they aren't happy, but the facts are that their investment is worth a lot less than when they bought it. Tellingly they only really broke cover when we were riding high last season with zero visits to Swansea since relegation. The CLN seems like a salvage measure to me rather than gushing enthusiasm. Again, contrast to the Wrexham owners who seem genuinely delighted to be involved with their club.
Yes they sacked Huw from the role. After he defied them over the Dan James affair. Huw didn't attend another board meeting for years (he may still haven't).
A body who was set up and helped the club in the darkest of hours, was present and contributing throughout the club's the brightest period, then seeks out a large fund to help safeguard the club's future sounds like a fantastic legacy to me.
"No mark up of that magnitude can ever be considered a bad deal" (Resloven 2020) [Post edited 6 Dec 2021 18:31]
|
Suing builders for shoddy one off work is completely different of course from suing long standing business partners with expertise, a shared interest and even personal friendship perhaps?.
From what I read the SCST had 4 months to sell their shares. Communications started in March and the sale was not completed until the late Summer 2016. As we have found out the SCST moves at a glacial pace. The sales was in discussion before Brexit. 5 years going on 6 years and still no sign of action. Somebody was sick but that was 2 years ago.
I suspect you know scooby doo about the sponsorship deal. I suspect the sponsor has given the club favourable deal to take new sponsorship if a better deal emerges. Professional people working together in a common interest. Threats of legal action are not good PR for the club with regard to sponsorship. I look forward to the case and the SCST leaving the club for good. They have been living of past glories more than Bob Geldorf. It was 20 years ago.
All the other shareholders were given the opportunity to invest I suspect which is what I would expect. What the SCST tells you and does not tell you is none of my business. Not a lot by the looks of it. Like how much a successful action will cost.
The US owners are experience football / sports investors and understood relegation was a possibility. They are not the sort of people to squeal when things do not go their way. The club fortunes swing often by external factors out of their control. If they did not understand this they would not have got involved.
The US owners applied 'hard medicine' and it worked the books are straight. Dentists are never popular.
Of course Huw was not sacked. He resigned giving up a good salary as he said he would if he could not longer influence big decisions. He was proved right. He brought in Graham Potter. Once the SCST helped get Huw out the door Potter was free of any obligations and left as well. Since he has gone the Academy seems to have suffered to the benefit of the clubs big local rivals.
I believe with respect to local business the SCST will become an organisation held in low regard. Their record of being unable to make deals and getting locked in legal constipation will be well documented. "Handle with extreme care".
Old men sitting on a big cash pile doing nothing with it are not going to be popular in the community. There will be no way back into the club. A lesson will have been well and truly learned. People that wanted to run away at the first sign of poor form and relegation. Getting 0.15% interest 3.85% less than inflation. Even the thickest of the thick recognises minus 3.85% for 10 years is a 32% value loss. One third. This is after giving one third to the English funders and legal people.
I want to see a SCST aiming to sell in the PL and handing out millions to needy local a causes not to the well healed of Ascot. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:16 - Dec 6 with 949 views | 3swan |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:51 - Dec 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Suing builders for shoddy one off work is completely different of course from suing long standing business partners with expertise, a shared interest and even personal friendship perhaps?.
From what I read the SCST had 4 months to sell their shares. Communications started in March and the sale was not completed until the late Summer 2016. As we have found out the SCST moves at a glacial pace. The sales was in discussion before Brexit. 5 years going on 6 years and still no sign of action. Somebody was sick but that was 2 years ago.
I suspect you know scooby doo about the sponsorship deal. I suspect the sponsor has given the club favourable deal to take new sponsorship if a better deal emerges. Professional people working together in a common interest. Threats of legal action are not good PR for the club with regard to sponsorship. I look forward to the case and the SCST leaving the club for good. They have been living of past glories more than Bob Geldorf. It was 20 years ago.
All the other shareholders were given the opportunity to invest I suspect which is what I would expect. What the SCST tells you and does not tell you is none of my business. Not a lot by the looks of it. Like how much a successful action will cost.
The US owners are experience football / sports investors and understood relegation was a possibility. They are not the sort of people to squeal when things do not go their way. The club fortunes swing often by external factors out of their control. If they did not understand this they would not have got involved.
The US owners applied 'hard medicine' and it worked the books are straight. Dentists are never popular.
Of course Huw was not sacked. He resigned giving up a good salary as he said he would if he could not longer influence big decisions. He was proved right. He brought in Graham Potter. Once the SCST helped get Huw out the door Potter was free of any obligations and left as well. Since he has gone the Academy seems to have suffered to the benefit of the clubs big local rivals.
I believe with respect to local business the SCST will become an organisation held in low regard. Their record of being unable to make deals and getting locked in legal constipation will be well documented. "Handle with extreme care".
Old men sitting on a big cash pile doing nothing with it are not going to be popular in the community. There will be no way back into the club. A lesson will have been well and truly learned. People that wanted to run away at the first sign of poor form and relegation. Getting 0.15% interest 3.85% less than inflation. Even the thickest of the thick recognises minus 3.85% for 10 years is a 32% value loss. One third. This is after giving one third to the English funders and legal people.
I want to see a SCST aiming to sell in the PL and handing out millions to needy local a causes not to the well healed of Ascot. |
While opposing views are welcome for debate, it has been posted many times that the rules that allows the Trust to operate does not allow the money to be given to local causes. We can all have differing views but clouding such an important issue is not in the best interest of fair and open debate. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:41 - Dec 6 with 909 views | max936 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:16 - Dec 6 by 3swan |
While opposing views are welcome for debate, it has been posted many times that the rules that allows the Trust to operate does not allow the money to be given to local causes. We can all have differing views but clouding such an important issue is not in the best interest of fair and open debate. |
He's utterly clueless and clearly acting has a cuckoo for the sellers, SCST is in the fabric of Swansea City Football Club, they aren't going anywhere if they win lose or draw any court case, any money gained will be held to safe guard the club, should the club fall on hard times at any point, not dished out willy nilly. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 07:23 - Dec 7 with 879 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:51 - Dec 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Suing builders for shoddy one off work is completely different of course from suing long standing business partners with expertise, a shared interest and even personal friendship perhaps?.
From what I read the SCST had 4 months to sell their shares. Communications started in March and the sale was not completed until the late Summer 2016. As we have found out the SCST moves at a glacial pace. The sales was in discussion before Brexit. 5 years going on 6 years and still no sign of action. Somebody was sick but that was 2 years ago.
I suspect you know scooby doo about the sponsorship deal. I suspect the sponsor has given the club favourable deal to take new sponsorship if a better deal emerges. Professional people working together in a common interest. Threats of legal action are not good PR for the club with regard to sponsorship. I look forward to the case and the SCST leaving the club for good. They have been living of past glories more than Bob Geldorf. It was 20 years ago.
All the other shareholders were given the opportunity to invest I suspect which is what I would expect. What the SCST tells you and does not tell you is none of my business. Not a lot by the looks of it. Like how much a successful action will cost.
The US owners are experience football / sports investors and understood relegation was a possibility. They are not the sort of people to squeal when things do not go their way. The club fortunes swing often by external factors out of their control. If they did not understand this they would not have got involved.
The US owners applied 'hard medicine' and it worked the books are straight. Dentists are never popular.
Of course Huw was not sacked. He resigned giving up a good salary as he said he would if he could not longer influence big decisions. He was proved right. He brought in Graham Potter. Once the SCST helped get Huw out the door Potter was free of any obligations and left as well. Since he has gone the Academy seems to have suffered to the benefit of the clubs big local rivals.
I believe with respect to local business the SCST will become an organisation held in low regard. Their record of being unable to make deals and getting locked in legal constipation will be well documented. "Handle with extreme care".
Old men sitting on a big cash pile doing nothing with it are not going to be popular in the community. There will be no way back into the club. A lesson will have been well and truly learned. People that wanted to run away at the first sign of poor form and relegation. Getting 0.15% interest 3.85% less than inflation. Even the thickest of the thick recognises minus 3.85% for 10 years is a 32% value loss. One third. This is after giving one third to the English funders and legal people.
I want to see a SCST aiming to sell in the PL and handing out millions to needy local a causes not to the well healed of Ascot. |
What builders were sued? They took the local council to court. And lost. The council with whom they took out a leasing a agreement on the stadium with. By your reckoning that's a long standing business partnership.
None of that is relevant. The trust never received an offer at the same terms as the sellouts. Apparently the nearest one they changed the terms and then quickly rescinded. This is the whole crux of the case (which you have speculated the trust will win at great length). If they'd had a bid for the shares at exactly the same terms, a QC wouldn't have said they have a strong case.
If I had to speculate it's probably a very low ball deal. Liberty were contributing nothing so anyone would have been better than that. Smart move by Morgan. But quite interesting the Americans with their contacts couldn't find a sponsor prior to this, seeing as no income has been received through stadium sponsorship for years prior. Well the Americans tend to disagree with you. If they were that concerned about bad PR maybe they should have turned up to mediation. Do you know something we don't about the sponsorship deal then?
That's nonsense because you only know that other shareholders have been involved since Winter slipped it out in this meeting recently. I've given you the trust's statements from the time. They certainly do not suggest they were ever asked to contribute. However the inclusion of other shareholders appears to have been hidden from them. Yes telling the Americans exactly how much the trust have to fight the case would be a fantastic tactic wouldn't it!!??
Well relegation wasn't out of their control. But their investment is still languishing a lower value than when they bought it. They've even decided plough more money in.
Hahaha still going by that script then. So Huw left a few days after openly defying the Americans ridiculous stance on DJ. So you're saying he resigned. So what's that got to do with the trust?? He was bombed out because he disobeyed the Americans terrible orders. Don't be so niave.
Again that's nonsense, local business will see the trust for what it is. A body that could soon have gone toe to toe with a more resourceful foe and got what it was justly and morally eligible to have. And evidently tried every method to avoid court action in doing so.
Wow how out of touch are you. The supporters trust with a fund that they've obtained by taking the people who appointed Bob Bradley to court aren't going to popular in the community!? And again you're making things up - assuming they'll use the same account with same rate as the easy access account as they have now and assuming they'll pay the legal costs. This is making you look so bitter and twisted peddling out these myths and slanted assumptions so often.
Well we aren't in the Premier League and if we do get there at some point who's to say the trust won't be excluded again. We are patently aware the party involved are capable of such activities in pursuit of getting their deals done. They could even just sell their holding company and not just the club to make it even murkier than last time. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 09:58 - Dec 7 with 862 views | Catullus |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:51 - Dec 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Suing builders for shoddy one off work is completely different of course from suing long standing business partners with expertise, a shared interest and even personal friendship perhaps?.
From what I read the SCST had 4 months to sell their shares. Communications started in March and the sale was not completed until the late Summer 2016. As we have found out the SCST moves at a glacial pace. The sales was in discussion before Brexit. 5 years going on 6 years and still no sign of action. Somebody was sick but that was 2 years ago.
I suspect you know scooby doo about the sponsorship deal. I suspect the sponsor has given the club favourable deal to take new sponsorship if a better deal emerges. Professional people working together in a common interest. Threats of legal action are not good PR for the club with regard to sponsorship. I look forward to the case and the SCST leaving the club for good. They have been living of past glories more than Bob Geldorf. It was 20 years ago.
All the other shareholders were given the opportunity to invest I suspect which is what I would expect. What the SCST tells you and does not tell you is none of my business. Not a lot by the looks of it. Like how much a successful action will cost.
The US owners are experience football / sports investors and understood relegation was a possibility. They are not the sort of people to squeal when things do not go their way. The club fortunes swing often by external factors out of their control. If they did not understand this they would not have got involved.
The US owners applied 'hard medicine' and it worked the books are straight. Dentists are never popular.
Of course Huw was not sacked. He resigned giving up a good salary as he said he would if he could not longer influence big decisions. He was proved right. He brought in Graham Potter. Once the SCST helped get Huw out the door Potter was free of any obligations and left as well. Since he has gone the Academy seems to have suffered to the benefit of the clubs big local rivals.
I believe with respect to local business the SCST will become an organisation held in low regard. Their record of being unable to make deals and getting locked in legal constipation will be well documented. "Handle with extreme care".
Old men sitting on a big cash pile doing nothing with it are not going to be popular in the community. There will be no way back into the club. A lesson will have been well and truly learned. People that wanted to run away at the first sign of poor form and relegation. Getting 0.15% interest 3.85% less than inflation. Even the thickest of the thick recognises minus 3.85% for 10 years is a 32% value loss. One third. This is after giving one third to the English funders and legal people.
I want to see a SCST aiming to sell in the PL and handing out millions to needy local a causes not to the well healed of Ascot. |
Yet again a post with a lot of "I suspect" which is in guesswork on your behalf; speculation to back up your other guesses and assumptions.
What you say about Potter leaving is truly laughable. Jenkins leaving didn't free Potter of any obligation, he was still under contract. He left because an EPL club came in for him and offered him more money.
Jenkins resigned having come under intense pressure after a string of bad decisions, from "A Jack to a Judas" as the banner said. One of those was the selling of most of his shres for millions but staying in post on a massive salary, he wanted the best of both worlds, the money and to retain the influence but he buggered it up.
What you suspect about the other shareholders we know not to be true, we know the trust were kept out of it. What you suspect and would expect again are merely attempts to shore up your guesswork.
The truth will out one day, maybe after the court case when things become public knowledge, then we shall see.
PS, did you see what I did there, I stayed o topic!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:34 - Dec 7 with 800 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 09:58 - Dec 7 by Catullus |
Yet again a post with a lot of "I suspect" which is in guesswork on your behalf; speculation to back up your other guesses and assumptions.
What you say about Potter leaving is truly laughable. Jenkins leaving didn't free Potter of any obligation, he was still under contract. He left because an EPL club came in for him and offered him more money.
Jenkins resigned having come under intense pressure after a string of bad decisions, from "A Jack to a Judas" as the banner said. One of those was the selling of most of his shres for millions but staying in post on a massive salary, he wanted the best of both worlds, the money and to retain the influence but he buggered it up.
What you suspect about the other shareholders we know not to be true, we know the trust were kept out of it. What you suspect and would expect again are merely attempts to shore up your guesswork.
The truth will out one day, maybe after the court case when things become public knowledge, then we shall see.
PS, did you see what I did there, I stayed o topic!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo |
I get accused of stating opinions as facts. I do not do this as I am and outsider with no interest in the club.
Chief said Jenkins was sacked. This was inaccurate and I corrected him he resigned.
Chief said the builders were not taken to court. Wrong again they were.
Chief has also stated the SCST were excluded from the Convertible loan note. I have asked him to check this. On a hat trick. Lets see how he gets on.
It was said the SCST cannot make charitable donations (you perhaps?). Wrong again, They can. They sponsor a kids football league group for example. It says this in the rule book,
{All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.
8.1. The society must not use or deal with its assets except8.1.1. where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for the benefit of the community;}
Winter stated under questioning that other shareholder outside the US group did contribute to the CLN. This includes presumably the remaining sellers. The SCST never claimed they were excluded. They complained about not being informed in good time. I suspect they declined the invitation to invest. I have asked Chief to find this out. He is a member.
You use the "We know this and we know that". Your conclusions are often wrong. If the SCST want to give their millions away let it be to local Welsh charities not the ruling English elite of lawyer bankers and insurers. No doubt many of the SCST members are card holding Socialists. What are they thinking? . [Post edited 7 Dec 2021 16:39]
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:50 - Dec 7 with 792 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:34 - Dec 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I get accused of stating opinions as facts. I do not do this as I am and outsider with no interest in the club.
Chief said Jenkins was sacked. This was inaccurate and I corrected him he resigned.
Chief said the builders were not taken to court. Wrong again they were.
Chief has also stated the SCST were excluded from the Convertible loan note. I have asked him to check this. On a hat trick. Lets see how he gets on.
It was said the SCST cannot make charitable donations (you perhaps?). Wrong again, They can. They sponsor a kids football league group for example. It says this in the rule book,
{All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.
8.1. The society must not use or deal with its assets except8.1.1. where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for the benefit of the community;}
Winter stated under questioning that other shareholder outside the US group did contribute to the CLN. This includes presumably the remaining sellers. The SCST never claimed they were excluded. They complained about not being informed in good time. I suspect they declined the invitation to invest. I have asked Chief to find this out. He is a member.
You use the "We know this and we know that". Your conclusions are often wrong. If the SCST want to give their millions away let it be to local Welsh charities not the ruling English elite of lawyer bankers and insurers. No doubt many of the SCST members are card holding Socialists. What are they thinking? . [Post edited 7 Dec 2021 16:39]
|
Well sacked / resigned let's face it, he left after defying the Americans over the James saga.
What builders do you keep going on about!?
https://www.thestadiumbusiness
The swans took the council to court and lost.
Only now has Winter stated that other parties besides Silverstein plus K&L were involved in the CLN. Do you accept this as fact?
I've shown you directly where the trust were not aware of their involvement. It was sold to the trust as 'investment' from Silverstein matched by the American owners.
Yes the trust have stated they weren't aware that the CLN wasn't finalised and weren't aware that it was going to get released. This does not sound like the language of a party that were fully consulted and included. On what basis do you think the trust were offered to contribute? Complete hunch?
The members are thinking what we have been all along. The long term security and future of the club. And if local charities can continue to be helped along the way, happy days. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.