| More information on the Convertible Loan note 19:41 - Dec 3 with 12689 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 21:23 - Dec 13 with 1036 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:02 - Dec 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is just the way business works. There are some thing which are a legal obligation and other things that are not.
My experience was in a share buy back where all shareholders were offered a prospectus. This is clearly different as a convertible loan note. It seems it was not necessary to invite all shareholders. Other know this better than me. It is quite a complex field.
Other shareholders it seems contracted the club and asked to get involved. They were not excluded. The SCST asked for more details but did not ask to become involved. Their enquiry will be answered in due course. |
Ah right when you're criticising the trust they're 'bad networkers'. When the Americans are proven not to be communicating it's 'just business'. Business it maybe, but that doesn't make it morally correct nor does it foster a cooperative working environment does it?
Ok so you were wrong to say the Americans did invite the trust then? Where you were right however was that they should have invited them (whether it be legal or not). Do you stand by that statement still? Or now you know the trust weren't lying and I called your bluff on gaining clarity are you now going to renege on it?
What evidence is there to suggest other shareholders contacted the club to be involved? Do you have evidence of that? The trust were not invited to contribute nor told that the CLN was finalised nor that other shareholders were included. Of course they were excluded. They were excluded from participating and also kept in the dark over some of the key details.
Answered in due course? It's been over a year. Are you really going to claim that this is an acceptable way to treat and communicate with a fellow shareholder? |  |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:24 - Dec 13 with 1028 views | Chief |
And for the record...
Resloven has ignored and dodged many questions in my last few posts to them alone. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 23:26 - Dec 13 with 1003 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:23 - Dec 13 by Chief |
Ah right when you're criticising the trust they're 'bad networkers'. When the Americans are proven not to be communicating it's 'just business'. Business it maybe, but that doesn't make it morally correct nor does it foster a cooperative working environment does it?
Ok so you were wrong to say the Americans did invite the trust then? Where you were right however was that they should have invited them (whether it be legal or not). Do you stand by that statement still? Or now you know the trust weren't lying and I called your bluff on gaining clarity are you now going to renege on it?
What evidence is there to suggest other shareholders contacted the club to be involved? Do you have evidence of that? The trust were not invited to contribute nor told that the CLN was finalised nor that other shareholders were included. Of course they were excluded. They were excluded from participating and also kept in the dark over some of the key details.
Answered in due course? It's been over a year. Are you really going to claim that this is an acceptable way to treat and communicate with a fellow shareholder? |
I accept if the SCST say they were not invited then they were not invited. There is no reason to question what they have told you. It appears it is not a legal requirement for CLNs.
Lack of communication is a networking matter and appears to be in the process of getting resolved in the structured dialogue which appears to have been cordial. The new SCST man appears open and transparent. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 23:34 - Dec 13 with 999 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 23:26 - Dec 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I accept if the SCST say they were not invited then they were not invited. There is no reason to question what they have told you. It appears it is not a legal requirement for CLNs.
Lack of communication is a networking matter and appears to be in the process of getting resolved in the structured dialogue which appears to have been cordial. The new SCST man appears open and transparent. |
It may not be a legal requirement but in the spirit of honesty and openness, shouldn't they have been invited anyway?
Well judging by this whole episode the networking issue is an issue on behalf of the Americans / Winter is it not? The lack of invite for the trust, the lack of honesty of who was invited into the CLN, the fact the news was released before the trust knew it was finalised and the lack of information despite requests A YEAR ON amply demonstrate this.
It is refreshing to finally sense at least a modicum of humility and realism in your post though. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:35 - Dec 14 with 947 views | shingle |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:39 - Dec 13 by Chief |
Haha great stuff |
I know.  |  | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:40 - Dec 14 with 942 views | shingle |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:24 - Dec 13 by Chief |
And for the record...
Resloven has ignored and dodged many questions in my last few posts to them alone. |
But why would he, you are the one who has been continuously owned by him so why would he ignore and dodge your questions.  | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:46 - Dec 14 with 932 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:40 - Dec 14 by shingle |
But why would he, you are the one who has been continuously owned by him so why would he ignore and dodge your questions. |
Ha tremendous | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:04 - Dec 14 with 925 views | shingle |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:46 - Dec 14 by Chief |
Ha tremendous |
Indeed it is.  | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:09 - Dec 14 with 922 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:04 - Dec 14 by shingle |
Indeed it is. |
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:50 - Dec 14 with 914 views | shingle |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:09 - Dec 14 by Chief |
|
 | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:17 - Dec 14 with 901 views | majorraglan |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:59 - Dec 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
One poster suggested Mr Winter had no obligation to reply to an outside party on internal matters. This was a reasonable point.
Having done a little reading I cannot find any reference to the club having an obligation to inform all shareholder that they were eligible to loan money to the club in a CLN. The SCST were clearly informed that Silverstein was loaning the club with a CLN and this was matched by other US interested parties.
At this point perhaps other local interests contacted the club and asked also to be involved as well it seems. The SCST if concerned at the "so called inflated" 5% (only 1% above UK inflation) could agree, if minded, to a lesser figure for the good of the club. Say 1.5% still 10 times they are getting off their good friends at Santander. (according to accounts)
The US people are very willing to engage and Mr Silverstein is in town until mid January. He sounds a like a great person. I like the cut of his jib. A communicator. It sounds like a listener as well. He will understand the SCST want to accumulate money.
It seems to me the position of fans is becoming fairly clear. They want to take money off the owners but not off the club. If the Trust take money directly off the US owners, the US owners will target the fans and club assets to get it back. This is logic. Swansea city is vehicle for everyone to profit or lose money.
You really are not too smart are you. SCST take £1m say when times are good in dividends. When the club is short of cash they loan the money back to he club getting 5% interest for 5 years. The club buys the like of Piroe with this money. The club sell Piroe for £10m and pays the SCST back £1,276,281 in 2025. Profit £7.7m. everybody happy. £10m minus £1m minus loan and interest payment) Its business.
If the SCST are unhappy at not being involved in the CLN they should contact Mr Winter. He can arrange for them to contribute to the second tranche and either take interest (my recommendation) or buy new shares. |
Reference the interest rate of 5%, inflation last year averaged .85% so the interest rate attached to the lan when it was taken out was much higher than inflation and much higher than base rate. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:57 - Dec 15 with 863 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 23:34 - Dec 13 by Chief |
It may not be a legal requirement but in the spirit of honesty and openness, shouldn't they have been invited anyway?
Well judging by this whole episode the networking issue is an issue on behalf of the Americans / Winter is it not? The lack of invite for the trust, the lack of honesty of who was invited into the CLN, the fact the news was released before the trust knew it was finalised and the lack of information despite requests A YEAR ON amply demonstrate this.
It is refreshing to finally sense at least a modicum of humility and realism in your post though. |
Well Resloven's silence in response to the irrefutable points in this post speaks volumes.
I can only deem that to be a quiet (yet cowardly) acceptance of what I stated. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:30 - Dec 16 with 828 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 23:34 - Dec 13 by Chief |
It may not be a legal requirement but in the spirit of honesty and openness, shouldn't they have been invited anyway?
Well judging by this whole episode the networking issue is an issue on behalf of the Americans / Winter is it not? The lack of invite for the trust, the lack of honesty of who was invited into the CLN, the fact the news was released before the trust knew it was finalised and the lack of information despite requests A YEAR ON amply demonstrate this.
It is refreshing to finally sense at least a modicum of humility and realism in your post though. |
I noticed your little dig at me again. Remember abuse is not tolerated on this site. I can brush off abuse for a while, like 'Fraud' and 'Coward' but will not put up with it indefinitely. Try and be civil and stick to the arguments. You are a good debater but have a weak grasp of financial basics.
I suspect no UK interests were invited to join in the loan. It seems there is no obligation to do this. Silverstein may have volunteered his money uninvited presumably from some US football league network event. Levien and co matched it. I suspect (no evidence) that the other minor owners demanded to be involved to prevent them being diluted below 5% holding. This is me reading between the lines.
I live in a shed above the village of Resolven and have no contacts in the club. Quoting me an unanswered letter from a year ago as evidence of poor treatment is neither here or there for me. Poor relations between the Trust and the club have existed for some time. I recommend they work harder to cooperate. A US director is in town until January and is a well known to be able to network, listen, learn and work in a constructive manner. I wish him well. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:53 - Dec 16 with 819 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:30 - Dec 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I noticed your little dig at me again. Remember abuse is not tolerated on this site. I can brush off abuse for a while, like 'Fraud' and 'Coward' but will not put up with it indefinitely. Try and be civil and stick to the arguments. You are a good debater but have a weak grasp of financial basics.
I suspect no UK interests were invited to join in the loan. It seems there is no obligation to do this. Silverstein may have volunteered his money uninvited presumably from some US football league network event. Levien and co matched it. I suspect (no evidence) that the other minor owners demanded to be involved to prevent them being diluted below 5% holding. This is me reading between the lines.
I live in a shed above the village of Resolven and have no contacts in the club. Quoting me an unanswered letter from a year ago as evidence of poor treatment is neither here or there for me. Poor relations between the Trust and the club have existed for some time. I recommend they work harder to cooperate. A US director is in town until January and is a well known to be able to network, listen, learn and work in a constructive manner. I wish him well. |
So you accuse me of being abusive then get again throw out your own dig that you cannot ever substantiate. "Weak grasp of financial basics" yet you never demonstrate what gives you that impression. Reality is you don't have that impression. It's a desperate spurious attempt to throw shade on me because you've got nothing else.
You suspect but don't know. There's no legal obligation but out of courtesy shouldn't they have offered all shareholders including the trust? In the spirit of networking? Demonstrate to me you aren't the coward you are coming across as and answer that question honestly.
Haha nonsense. You'd be shouting it so loud from the Neath valley if it was the Americans waiting for information from the trust on such an important matter for this long. But because it's the trust - "it's neither here or there"
Pathetic. Can you honestly, genuinely blame other posters when they accuse you of having a vested interest when you come out with ridiculously skewed things like that? Seriously?
Shouldn't you be directly your ire at the Americans then? On this matter the trust obviously have engaged. Not just sat silently doing nothing. They've taken an interest. But are still being kept in the dark. Surely it's the Americans who need to work harder to cooperate and communicate. It's a flaw they've admitted previously but they've evidently fallen back into bad habits.
This isn't particularly about Silverstein. The trust are on decent terms with him, but he's an outsider and not a majority shareholder. He couldn't have instigated this and put it in motion, despite being part of it. Maybe he can / will provide answers, but I wouldn't say it's his remit to do so and I very much doubt he will. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:24 - Dec 16 with 809 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:53 - Dec 16 by Chief |
So you accuse me of being abusive then get again throw out your own dig that you cannot ever substantiate. "Weak grasp of financial basics" yet you never demonstrate what gives you that impression. Reality is you don't have that impression. It's a desperate spurious attempt to throw shade on me because you've got nothing else.
You suspect but don't know. There's no legal obligation but out of courtesy shouldn't they have offered all shareholders including the trust? In the spirit of networking? Demonstrate to me you aren't the coward you are coming across as and answer that question honestly.
Haha nonsense. You'd be shouting it so loud from the Neath valley if it was the Americans waiting for information from the trust on such an important matter for this long. But because it's the trust - "it's neither here or there"
Pathetic. Can you honestly, genuinely blame other posters when they accuse you of having a vested interest when you come out with ridiculously skewed things like that? Seriously?
Shouldn't you be directly your ire at the Americans then? On this matter the trust obviously have engaged. Not just sat silently doing nothing. They've taken an interest. But are still being kept in the dark. Surely it's the Americans who need to work harder to cooperate and communicate. It's a flaw they've admitted previously but they've evidently fallen back into bad habits.
This isn't particularly about Silverstein. The trust are on decent terms with him, but he's an outsider and not a majority shareholder. He couldn't have instigated this and put it in motion, despite being part of it. Maybe he can / will provide answers, but I wouldn't say it's his remit to do so and I very much doubt he will. |
You can debate but really do have a very weak grasp on investments and finance. I do not know the new SCST but am sure hey are getting on just dandy with the US director in town. Neither will have too much truck with the "small town politics" that dogged relations before. Onwards and upwards. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:30 - Dec 16 with 806 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:24 - Dec 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You can debate but really do have a very weak grasp on investments and finance. I do not know the new SCST but am sure hey are getting on just dandy with the US director in town. Neither will have too much truck with the "small town politics" that dogged relations before. Onwards and upwards. |
Haha yet you still cannot demonstrate how or why you come to that dubious viewpoint.
Whereas the proof is in the pudding regarding your cowardice:
Still no criticism for the Americans over their handling of this CLN?
Still no sympathy for the trust over their treatment over this CLN?
Still no acknowledgement that having called your bluff, you were wrong over the CLN?
As I say, as a non shareholder, Silverstein has little bearing on anything. It's been demonstrated the American owner's old deficiencies still exist. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:25 - Dec 16 with 786 views | BillyChong |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:59 - Dec 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
One poster suggested Mr Winter had no obligation to reply to an outside party on internal matters. This was a reasonable point.
Having done a little reading I cannot find any reference to the club having an obligation to inform all shareholder that they were eligible to loan money to the club in a CLN. The SCST were clearly informed that Silverstein was loaning the club with a CLN and this was matched by other US interested parties.
At this point perhaps other local interests contacted the club and asked also to be involved as well it seems. The SCST if concerned at the "so called inflated" 5% (only 1% above UK inflation) could agree, if minded, to a lesser figure for the good of the club. Say 1.5% still 10 times they are getting off their good friends at Santander. (according to accounts)
The US people are very willing to engage and Mr Silverstein is in town until mid January. He sounds a like a great person. I like the cut of his jib. A communicator. It sounds like a listener as well. He will understand the SCST want to accumulate money.
It seems to me the position of fans is becoming fairly clear. They want to take money off the owners but not off the club. If the Trust take money directly off the US owners, the US owners will target the fans and club assets to get it back. This is logic. Swansea city is vehicle for everyone to profit or lose money.
You really are not too smart are you. SCST take £1m say when times are good in dividends. When the club is short of cash they loan the money back to he club getting 5% interest for 5 years. The club buys the like of Piroe with this money. The club sell Piroe for £10m and pays the SCST back £1,276,281 in 2025. Profit £7.7m. everybody happy. £10m minus £1m minus loan and interest payment) Its business.
If the SCST are unhappy at not being involved in the CLN they should contact Mr Winter. He can arrange for them to contribute to the second tranche and either take interest (my recommendation) or buy new shares. |
“At this point perhaps other local interests contacted the club and asked also to be involved as well it seems. The SCST if concerned at the "so called inflated" 5% (only 1% above UK inflation) could agree, if minded, to a lesser figure for the good of the club. Say 1.5% still 10 times they are getting off their good friends at Santander. (according to accounts)”
What an insane suggestion. Why didn’t Mr Silverstein offer the club the same goodwill with a low interest rate? Cloud cuckoo land springs to mind | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:58 - Dec 16 with 771 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:25 - Dec 16 by BillyChong |
“At this point perhaps other local interests contacted the club and asked also to be involved as well it seems. The SCST if concerned at the "so called inflated" 5% (only 1% above UK inflation) could agree, if minded, to a lesser figure for the good of the club. Say 1.5% still 10 times they are getting off their good friends at Santander. (according to accounts)”
What an insane suggestion. Why didn’t Mr Silverstein offer the club the same goodwill with a low interest rate? Cloud cuckoo land springs to mind |
I asked why the SCST were not contributing. The Chief replied that 5% was in his opinion exorbitant and the SCST could not be seen to be exploiting the club for profit.
I therefore made the suggestion they can loan the club at their own selected rate less than 5% if they wanted to. Just get in touch with Winter and crack on. A new CLN is in the wings. The SCST are still waiting for clarifications on the last one. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:05 - Dec 16 with 763 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 20:58 - Dec 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I asked why the SCST were not contributing. The Chief replied that 5% was in his opinion exorbitant and the SCST could not be seen to be exploiting the club for profit.
I therefore made the suggestion they can loan the club at their own selected rate less than 5% if they wanted to. Just get in touch with Winter and crack on. A new CLN is in the wings. The SCST are still waiting for clarifications on the last one. |
And that of course they weren't asked and haven't been given the full the details yet. But yes agreed I wouldn't want the trust taking money out of the club over the odds at a time when the club apparently needs loans
Is it as simple as contacting Winter and cracking on then? If they're unable to gain clarification on the terms of the existing one, what makes you think it's so straight to actually become part of it? Bizarre logic.
And yes my recent discussions with the trust representative also revealed they have had no indication of any further CLN by the way. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:18 - Dec 16 with 754 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:05 - Dec 16 by Chief |
And that of course they weren't asked and haven't been given the full the details yet. But yes agreed I wouldn't want the trust taking money out of the club over the odds at a time when the club apparently needs loans
Is it as simple as contacting Winter and cracking on then? If they're unable to gain clarification on the terms of the existing one, what makes you think it's so straight to actually become part of it? Bizarre logic.
And yes my recent discussions with the trust representative also revealed they have had no indication of any further CLN by the way. |
Julia Winter said this in the dialogue.
"Ownership know that there needs to be a contribution, we don’t yet know what that amount will be, because we don’t know whether we will trade in January or in the summer, but there is the ability for them to use the loan note to do so. There will be a blend of ownership contribution and trading.""
Its on the club website for your interest. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:21 - Dec 16 with 751 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:18 - Dec 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Julia Winter said this in the dialogue.
"Ownership know that there needs to be a contribution, we don’t yet know what that amount will be, because we don’t know whether we will trade in January or in the summer, but there is the ability for them to use the loan note to do so. There will be a blend of ownership contribution and trading.""
Its on the club website for your interest. |
I've read it, that's what lead to me clarify with the trust.
And this mention from Winter was the first the trust heard of another CLN or extension of the first. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:19 - Dec 17 with 724 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:30 - Dec 16 by Chief |
Haha yet you still cannot demonstrate how or why you come to that dubious viewpoint.
Whereas the proof is in the pudding regarding your cowardice:
Still no criticism for the Americans over their handling of this CLN?
Still no sympathy for the trust over their treatment over this CLN?
Still no acknowledgement that having called your bluff, you were wrong over the CLN?
As I say, as a non shareholder, Silverstein has little bearing on anything. It's been demonstrated the American owner's old deficiencies still exist. |
Still too scared and or 🷠headed to answer these questions Resloven? | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:37 - Dec 20 with 673 views | Chief |
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):
"I am pretty disappointed that one of my supporters has migrated. A 25 % swing. This will not deflect me from my core principles. My philosophy has remained consistent and steadfast and pretty much unique on this forum.
It is 'pro Sellers' and Pro the current US management team (including Mindi). I want the minority group to drop their legal claim and get back on the wagon train and start making money without interference of English legal third parties who are not needed at this club.
All businesses some times have to make hard decisions in order to progress for the good of the whole. The club cannot move at the pace of the slowest partner. That is the SCST of course. The sale was 5 going on 6 years ago. David Frost the Brexit negotiator is now free perhaps they should give him a all to move things along.
Because the people who are going to be sued by the Trust have put £13m into the club to keep it trading as a convertible loan, the idea that a Trust win in court would not affect the club is for the fairies.
The CLN was a practical and philosophical game changer.
a) The club will be in trouble if the loan is not converted and there are no saleable assets
b) Paying off the Trust would be covered by the CLN recovery. This means club debt.
c) The argument that the US owners were 'asset strippers' looking for a quick filp sale has been blown out of the water. It was said by some "They are only hanging around for the parachutes" Remember?
d) The Trust narrative has changed to become clearly anti investment. They need to leave the cub not because it is falling down the league (1982 model) but because it fears being "diluted to nothing". This is not credible as far as I am concerned.
e) They have funds to contribute to he CLN if they want to but have chosen not to pursue the matter." [Post edited 20 Dec 2021 17:17]
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:44 - Dec 20 with 668 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:37 - Dec 20 by Chief |
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):
"I am pretty disappointed that one of my supporters has migrated. A 25 % swing. This will not deflect me from my core principles. My philosophy has remained consistent and steadfast and pretty much unique on this forum.
It is 'pro Sellers' and Pro the current US management team (including Mindi). I want the minority group to drop their legal claim and get back on the wagon train and start making money without interference of English legal third parties who are not needed at this club.
All businesses some times have to make hard decisions in order to progress for the good of the whole. The club cannot move at the pace of the slowest partner. That is the SCST of course. The sale was 5 going on 6 years ago. David Frost the Brexit negotiator is now free perhaps they should give him a all to move things along.
Because the people who are going to be sued by the Trust have put £13m into the club to keep it trading as a convertible loan, the idea that a Trust win in court would not affect the club is for the fairies.
The CLN was a practical and philosophical game changer.
a) The club will be in trouble if the loan is not converted and there are no saleable assets
b) Paying off the Trust would be covered by the CLN recovery. This means club debt.
c) The argument that the US owners were 'asset strippers' looking for a quick filp sale has been blown out of the water. It was said by some "They are only hanging around for the parachutes" Remember?
d) The Trust narrative has changed to become clearly anti investment. They need to leave the cub not because it is falling down the league (1982 model) but because it fears being "diluted to nothing". This is not credible as far as I am concerned.
e) They have funds to contribute to he CLN if they want to but have chosen not to pursue the matter." [Post edited 20 Dec 2021 17:17]
|
You do not have my permission to move my posts about. Pure ignorance, | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:01 - Dec 20 with 662 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:37 - Dec 20 by Chief |
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):
"I am pretty disappointed that one of my supporters has migrated. A 25 % swing. This will not deflect me from my core principles. My philosophy has remained consistent and steadfast and pretty much unique on this forum.
It is 'pro Sellers' and Pro the current US management team (including Mindi). I want the minority group to drop their legal claim and get back on the wagon train and start making money without interference of English legal third parties who are not needed at this club.
All businesses some times have to make hard decisions in order to progress for the good of the whole. The club cannot move at the pace of the slowest partner. That is the SCST of course. The sale was 5 going on 6 years ago. David Frost the Brexit negotiator is now free perhaps they should give him a all to move things along.
Because the people who are going to be sued by the Trust have put £13m into the club to keep it trading as a convertible loan, the idea that a Trust win in court would not affect the club is for the fairies.
The CLN was a practical and philosophical game changer.
a) The club will be in trouble if the loan is not converted and there are no saleable assets
b) Paying off the Trust would be covered by the CLN recovery. This means club debt.
c) The argument that the US owners were 'asset strippers' looking for a quick filp sale has been blown out of the water. It was said by some "They are only hanging around for the parachutes" Remember?
d) The Trust narrative has changed to become clearly anti investment. They need to leave the cub not because it is falling down the league (1982 model) but because it fears being "diluted to nothing". This is not credible as far as I am concerned.
e) They have funds to contribute to he CLN if they want to but have chosen not to pursue the matter." [Post edited 20 Dec 2021 17:17]
|
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. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.