| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? 14:55 - Dec 19 with 6639 views | KeithHaynes |
Corny’s latest for me is reassuring. |  |
| |  |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:36 - Jan 6 with 959 views | Chief |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:24 - Jan 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As far as I know the SCST have expressed no interest in joining the Convertible loan note They want details but what for? Something for the file perhaps? If they are serious they will get the details no doubt. Their modest investment would not affect Silverstein's holding much if they bought shares with it.
In fact it will not affect it at all as the SCST could take the interest and not buy new shares at all.
There is nothing in their reams of statements where investment in the club is discussed by the members.
From accounts around £250,000 has gone in legal fees since the sale. If put into the CLN that money would have put a big hole in the Fisher fee. I am questioning the members commitment to the club. They claim the future of the club is their sole objective. When the club needs money they declare no interest and ask for "further details". |
- Because it has some pretty important implications for them. Without the details how can they possibly decide if they should / could get involved in it? They've asked for the information. You know this. You'd think it common courtesy to share the details with other shareholders too. You have admitted on another thread that the trust should have been invited. We know for a fact they weren't. You are making yourself look very silly with this latest bugbear considering your words on that thread (the one you're scared of).
- so the trust should just loan the club money, but the rest of the shareholders have convertible loans? How's that fair, honest and ethical?
- read them have you? Well no one else has invested either yet. So struggling to see the relevance.
- 10mill plus has already been put in which should blow 400k out of the water, but it may not be available. If this is about the trust making money, why should they trust Silverstein with their loan?
- Requesting information is the very definition of declaring an interest. And they were not consulted on the CLN coming into being 'when the club needed money'.
So you're continuing this copy and paste campaign then? |  |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:53 - Jan 6 with 940 views | BillyChong |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 16:42 - Jan 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Silverstein is here to get value for money and negotiate hard. This of course is a different subject. Why is the SCST not offering £440k to help the club?. 5% on offer. (33 times what they are getting in Santander).
As Chief said it is zero risk. (as long as the club does not go bust). The long '6 year sulk' is costing them money. |
Not really a reply to my point. So I’ll do the same, why aren’t the 27 or so yanks in the background digging deep and sending a few dollars across the ocean?
As much as you try to twist it the bottom line is the yanks haven’t invested a penny. The CLN’s are a debt rather than investment. And there a string whispers that we can’t afford £400k for a player, as big as a signing we were making 12+ Years ago in league one. |  | | |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 18:20 - Jan 6 with 919 views | Chief |
It's ridiculous I've got to keep doing this but let's nip this in the bud ffs.
- The trust do not have the power to the loan the club money. They don't make that decision.
- If they wanted to or had the power to (which can't and don't) the Americans probably wouldn't let it happen anyway because that means Silverstein isn't getting value for his money if he dilutes.
You know this Resloven it's been discussed at great length, so grow up and stop deliberately acting twp and stop trying to twist every thread towards your ridiculous vendetta. [Post edited 6 Jan 2022 18:25]
| |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 18:30 - Jan 6 with 910 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:53 - Jan 6 by BillyChong |
Not really a reply to my point. So I’ll do the same, why aren’t the 27 or so yanks in the background digging deep and sending a few dollars across the ocean?
As much as you try to twist it the bottom line is the yanks haven’t invested a penny. The CLN’s are a debt rather than investment. And there a string whispers that we can’t afford £400k for a player, as big as a signing we were making 12+ Years ago in league one. |
The CLN will be converted based on (in my opinion) the investors not having to buy the SCST s shares. Why issue new shares if the court orders them to buy the Trusts shares.?
No new shares means a £13m debt for the club to be paid off by another phase of "harsh medicine". This in my opinion means big hikes in season tickets and possibly a new phase of redundancies. Welsh fans demanding US cash should now be over. The SCST were worth £21,000,000 in 2015 but failed to cash in. They were independently rich and able to stand on their own two feet. I have no idea why you are concerned about the 27 dentists. I suspect they might have also helped Mr Winter out with the CLN . Who knows?
We know the SCST have invested £250,000 for the legal profession £50,000 more than the ever put into Swansea city. (according to accounts). I put it to you they with out reform have very little to offer Swansea city now or in the future. |  |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 18:42 - Jan 6 with 902 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 18:20 - Jan 6 by Chief |
It's ridiculous I've got to keep doing this but let's nip this in the bud ffs.
- The trust do not have the power to the loan the club money. They don't make that decision.
- If they wanted to or had the power to (which can't and don't) the Americans probably wouldn't let it happen anyway because that means Silverstein isn't getting value for his money if he dilutes.
You know this Resloven it's been discussed at great length, so grow up and stop deliberately acting twp and stop trying to twist every thread towards your ridiculous vendetta. [Post edited 6 Jan 2022 18:25]
|
If the SCST join the Convertible loan note they are not obliged to buy new shares. The money involved is small and have very little effect on Silverstein's percentage holding for his £5m.
They would be advised in this case simple to take the interest £100k over 5 years, (£400k loan) Although they are taking money out of the club it is notionally coming back to the club at a later date instead of going into Santander's pockets. Not much point explaining banking profits on here.
This make great sense for the SCST. That is why it will not happen sadly. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 18:49 - Jan 6 with 901 views | Chief |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 18:30 - Jan 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The CLN will be converted based on (in my opinion) the investors not having to buy the SCST s shares. Why issue new shares if the court orders them to buy the Trusts shares.?
No new shares means a £13m debt for the club to be paid off by another phase of "harsh medicine". This in my opinion means big hikes in season tickets and possibly a new phase of redundancies. Welsh fans demanding US cash should now be over. The SCST were worth £21,000,000 in 2015 but failed to cash in. They were independently rich and able to stand on their own two feet. I have no idea why you are concerned about the 27 dentists. I suspect they might have also helped Mr Winter out with the CLN . Who knows?
We know the SCST have invested £250,000 for the legal profession £50,000 more than the ever put into Swansea city. (according to accounts). I put it to you they with out reform have very little to offer Swansea city now or in the future. |
- because Silverstein has an agreement to buy shares at a championship price so he's got no reason not to convert. The others are then will have to stay in unless they don't want to be diluted by Silverstein.
- the club already has £13mill debt. Season tickets will have to back up at some point but it'll be counter productive of it's done too quickly, people don't buy and it'll backfire. Redundancies to which department? The playing and training staff? That means relegation. That means no sale of club.
- the trust weren't offered 21mil so couldn't cash in.
- who knows? Nobody because the Americans won't release the information.
- and that's 50k more than American has put into the club. And they have spent that to gain more money to ensure the future of the club. The only shareholder that can ever say that. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 21:09 - Jan 6 with 838 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 18:49 - Jan 6 by Chief |
- because Silverstein has an agreement to buy shares at a championship price so he's got no reason not to convert. The others are then will have to stay in unless they don't want to be diluted by Silverstein.
- the club already has £13mill debt. Season tickets will have to back up at some point but it'll be counter productive of it's done too quickly, people don't buy and it'll backfire. Redundancies to which department? The playing and training staff? That means relegation. That means no sale of club.
- the trust weren't offered 21mil so couldn't cash in.
- who knows? Nobody because the Americans won't release the information.
- and that's 50k more than American has put into the club. And they have spent that to gain more money to ensure the future of the club. The only shareholder that can ever say that. |
You do not appear to understand the situation. If the loan is converted to new shares, there is no debt. This was stated by Mr Winter. You cannot have it both ways.
We do not know the monthly situation of the club. One suspects losses. Thank goodness for the Rodon monies which will offset some of the losses.
You accept Silverstein will convert his loan into shares as will the other groups including the people you call 'Sellouts'. As I highlighted to you the 'so called sellouts' are becoming the re investors once again. The loan is a loan in name only. It is not known if any interest will be taken if shares are purchased.
I believe the only thing that can change this is an unfavourable court case result. Only a fool would predict the outcome. Anything could happen. The owners will buy the SCST if the have to then the club CLN turns into a debt. At present there are no debtors.
Once the loan is converted the US people will have invested £13m in capital into the club. The SCST investment is 1.5% of this. £200,000 / £13,000,000. This means 98.6% of all investments in Swansea city will have been by US people and people labelled sellouts. (200k /14m). | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 06:56 - Jan 7 with 756 views | Chief |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 21:09 - Jan 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You do not appear to understand the situation. If the loan is converted to new shares, there is no debt. This was stated by Mr Winter. You cannot have it both ways.
We do not know the monthly situation of the club. One suspects losses. Thank goodness for the Rodon monies which will offset some of the losses.
You accept Silverstein will convert his loan into shares as will the other groups including the people you call 'Sellouts'. As I highlighted to you the 'so called sellouts' are becoming the re investors once again. The loan is a loan in name only. It is not known if any interest will be taken if shares are purchased.
I believe the only thing that can change this is an unfavourable court case result. Only a fool would predict the outcome. Anything could happen. The owners will buy the SCST if the have to then the club CLN turns into a debt. At present there are no debtors.
Once the loan is converted the US people will have invested £13m in capital into the club. The SCST investment is 1.5% of this. £200,000 / £13,000,000. This means 98.6% of all investments in Swansea city will have been by US people and people labelled sellouts. (200k /14m). |
- over a year on from it being brought in it hasn't been converted - so it's debt. What have I misunderstood?
- I thought the Americans had made us 'sustainable'?
-- I don't accept that. They may or may not. As I say it's risk free currently. Given Silversteins rumoured aversion to committing to spending maybe he'll just walk away, who knows.
- pretty sure they won't converting if we are relegated. They may not convert while we're 16th in the championship. The legal case has been on the horizon before the loans. You're doing your usual thing of framing it that it's dependant on it. Which it isn't. The loaners are debtors currently.
- but they haven't yet, a year on. As it stands and this maybe unpalatable to you, the only entity that has put their own money into the club is the Trust. And they didn't want interest in return. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 7:39]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 13:54 - Jan 7 with 670 views | BillyChong |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 06:56 - Jan 7 by Chief |
- over a year on from it being brought in it hasn't been converted - so it's debt. What have I misunderstood?
- I thought the Americans had made us 'sustainable'?
-- I don't accept that. They may or may not. As I say it's risk free currently. Given Silversteins rumoured aversion to committing to spending maybe he'll just walk away, who knows.
- pretty sure they won't converting if we are relegated. They may not convert while we're 16th in the championship. The legal case has been on the horizon before the loans. You're doing your usual thing of framing it that it's dependant on it. Which it isn't. The loaners are debtors currently.
- but they haven't yet, a year on. As it stands and this maybe unpalatable to you, the only entity that has put their own money into the club is the Trust. And they didn't want interest in return. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 7:39]
|
Indeed, a year on this unconverted loan is still a debt that the club is paying interest on. Then again, unless it’s the Trust it’s deemed acceptable to pay inflated fees/interest rates to professionals and private ‘investment’ companies. | | | |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 14:42 - Jan 7 with 646 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 13:54 - Jan 7 by BillyChong |
Indeed, a year on this unconverted loan is still a debt that the club is paying interest on. Then again, unless it’s the Trust it’s deemed acceptable to pay inflated fees/interest rates to professionals and private ‘investment’ companies. |
There is no evidence that the club is paying interest on the Convertible loan note. It is subject to T and C s.
Swansea city have to pay bankers fees to help with cash flow. The SCST have no obligation to pay 30% -35% of everything they own for a legal case they cannot afford. Only a fool would guarantee a win in court.
If the CLN is converted into shares the total investment of private cash into the club will be £14m. The SCST contributed £200k in 2002 and have taken out £600k in dividends approximately.
The SCST share of total investment will therefore be 1.4% of the total. This means that 98.6% of all fresh capital has come from US people and the "sellouts". I am making the case that the SCST contribution is grossly exaggerated.
I give tribute to the early pioneers. The institution I contest has lost its way being overcome by "small town politics" and the members need to take action. They are not in existence to pay millions to the English ruling elite. How much the English agencies will receive in the event of a legal win is not in public knowledge. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 15:20 - Jan 7 with 635 views | Chief |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 14:42 - Jan 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is no evidence that the club is paying interest on the Convertible loan note. It is subject to T and C s.
Swansea city have to pay bankers fees to help with cash flow. The SCST have no obligation to pay 30% -35% of everything they own for a legal case they cannot afford. Only a fool would guarantee a win in court.
If the CLN is converted into shares the total investment of private cash into the club will be £14m. The SCST contributed £200k in 2002 and have taken out £600k in dividends approximately.
The SCST share of total investment will therefore be 1.4% of the total. This means that 98.6% of all fresh capital has come from US people and the "sellouts". I am making the case that the SCST contribution is grossly exaggerated.
I give tribute to the early pioneers. The institution I contest has lost its way being overcome by "small town politics" and the members need to take action. They are not in existence to pay millions to the English ruling elite. How much the English agencies will receive in the event of a legal win is not in public knowledge. |
- so there is evidence then? 5% was reported. Funny how you chose to believe some reports and ignore others.
- indeed. As we always done, even under Huw. No better off. That's why the trust took legal advice before proceeding. No court case is a guarantee. But the the pro outweighs the cons. Anyway, when we get to the Burnley pinnacle the trust will still be quids in.
- £14mill now? Where did you get that figure from? Not seen that anywhere. Inside knowledge? So currently the trust is the only shareholder that's invested in the club.
- so the trust are the only shareholder that has ever invested.
- irrelevant to the club though because that's the trust's own funds. How much will the Americans legal fees be? No idea and I don't care, not sure why anyone would. As long as it's coming from their own bank account they're entitled to spend it on who they want. No matter where they are from either. What if their lawyers are from London then? | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 16:42 - Jan 7 with 613 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 15:20 - Jan 7 by Chief |
- so there is evidence then? 5% was reported. Funny how you chose to believe some reports and ignore others.
- indeed. As we always done, even under Huw. No better off. That's why the trust took legal advice before proceeding. No court case is a guarantee. But the the pro outweighs the cons. Anyway, when we get to the Burnley pinnacle the trust will still be quids in.
- £14mill now? Where did you get that figure from? Not seen that anywhere. Inside knowledge? So currently the trust is the only shareholder that's invested in the club.
- so the trust are the only shareholder that has ever invested.
- irrelevant to the club though because that's the trust's own funds. How much will the Americans legal fees be? No idea and I don't care, not sure why anyone would. As long as it's coming from their own bank account they're entitled to spend it on who they want. No matter where they are from either. What if their lawyers are from London then? |
I am not an expert but from what have read the CLN has an interest rate attached if it is not converted. It is not clear to me if the interest is paid if the loanee elects to take cheap shares. It is down to the individual deal perhaps?. A question for Winter in the next dialogue.
I do not understand what the Trust's problem with the sale are. They explicitly stated their shares were not up for sale and they did not sell. They owned 21% of the club then and 21% of the club now. The clubs fortunes are down to business on the grass and can fluctuate.
How the Trust will pay their funders and legal fees if they lose the case. is not known.
The original investment was as I understand it a total £1m including £200k from the Trust. Add to that £13m becomes £14m of which the Trust invested 1.4%. 98.6% from the "sellouts" and US interests if they are b not obliged to revcover the CLN.
Why you are saying the Trust are the only people that have invested is a mystery.
The US people will have pay lawyers as they have no choice if forced to go to court. Member of the Trust can stop the legal action in their next meeting and recommend that their organisation instead invests in the club not third parties with no local interests. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 16:57]
| |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:23 - Jan 7 with 594 views | Chief |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 16:42 - Jan 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am not an expert but from what have read the CLN has an interest rate attached if it is not converted. It is not clear to me if the interest is paid if the loanee elects to take cheap shares. It is down to the individual deal perhaps?. A question for Winter in the next dialogue.
I do not understand what the Trust's problem with the sale are. They explicitly stated their shares were not up for sale and they did not sell. They owned 21% of the club then and 21% of the club now. The clubs fortunes are down to business on the grass and can fluctuate.
How the Trust will pay their funders and legal fees if they lose the case. is not known.
The original investment was as I understand it a total £1m including £200k from the Trust. Add to that £13m becomes £14m of which the Trust invested 1.4%. 98.6% from the "sellouts" and US interests if they are b not obliged to revcover the CLN.
Why you are saying the Trust are the only people that have invested is a mystery.
The US people will have pay lawyers as they have no choice if forced to go to court. Member of the Trust can stop the legal action in their next meeting and recommend that their organisation instead invests in the club not third parties with no local interests. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 16:57]
|
- well as we stand there is no conversion. But we know for a fact there is interest payable. The particulars haven't been released.
- they were excluded from it and the agreed process was not followed. If you fail to see that or acknowledge that by now there really is no hope for you. That's the whole reason there's QC endorsed court case in the offing. They did not explicitly state their shares weren't for sale under the circumstances at that time of the sale. They weren't asked and didn't receive any bids until much later (which were under different terns). And that's purely from a compliance viewpoint - no emotion in that at all.
- I assume that's why the trust is taking such special care to ensure everything is done properly which takes time. Not that it is of any relevance to you. Just another smear.
- well I'm just talking about investments not loans. So the Americans haven't invested anything. Who put in the other 800k you talk of?
- they brought it upon themselves by not completing the purchase correctly nor finding an out of court solution. The trust have tried their best to avoid it but as we saw with the mediation debacle the defendants didn't reciprocate. They said they wanted to talk in the zoom call but it never transpired.
- members of the trust don't want to stop legal action, so the opposite will happen. The risk reward ratio is deemed to be in Favour of going to court.
- maybe the Americans should have a meeting and choose not give their money to third party entities and come up with a plan to remedy the situation of out court. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:28 - Jan 7 with 591 views | Chief |
But moving on....
Anyone still confident in Silverstein? | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:57 - Jan 7 with 584 views | Whiterockin |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:28 - Jan 7 by Chief |
But moving on....
Anyone still confident in Silverstein? |
I think we need to give him the whole month. But unless all the work has been done behind the scenes and we are waiting for the first move for a domino effect, the signs are not good.
I would have thought Fulton would be gone at the very least. |  | | |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 18:23 - Jan 7 with 562 views | Chief |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:57 - Jan 7 by Whiterockin |
I think we need to give him the whole month. But unless all the work has been done behind the scenes and we are waiting for the first move for a domino effect, the signs are not good.
I would have thought Fulton would be gone at the very least. |
I concur although the early business comments look somewhat niave. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 19:14 - Jan 7 with 532 views | max936 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 17:57 - Jan 7 by Whiterockin |
I think we need to give him the whole month. But unless all the work has been done behind the scenes and we are waiting for the first move for a domino effect, the signs are not good.
I would have thought Fulton would be gone at the very least. |
He's only over for a fortnight in he, all smoke and mirrors if you ask me, he probably come over to check the books to see how he's getting his 5mil back. |  |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 20:30 - Jan 7 with 509 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 19:14 - Jan 7 by max936 |
He's only over for a fortnight in he, all smoke and mirrors if you ask me, he probably come over to check the books to see how he's getting his 5mil back. |
If he wants his £5m back he fills in a form and gives to to Winter. The US people are not running away. From what I hear from Chief the Swansea fans want to run away from ownership responsibility with a big cheque. The latest reason they gave was fear of dilution.
This is because their 21% holding is way too big for them and their members wallets. It is hard to understand why they did not recognise this. It always was. They had a bonkers strategy of going for 25% holding with no cash never imagining that investment would be needed. They were on the fantastical Huw Jenkins magical mystery tour. It ran out of gas after 15 years. Now investment is on the cards the SCST have no where to go. Fighters fight and runners run.
They could still chip in £400k and get 5% return if they want the interest. £20k a year interest. Fisher costs about that apparently. They are getting 3% of that in the Santander (according to accounts). They have the money.
Exeter city fans give their club £75k years as a gift. They do not want the money back and ask for no interest, They do not buy shares with it. Swansea was just too successful. They need business advice and a review of their strategy from professionals. Like Silverstein actually. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 20:44 - Jan 7 with 494 views | Chief |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 20:30 - Jan 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If he wants his £5m back he fills in a form and gives to to Winter. The US people are not running away. From what I hear from Chief the Swansea fans want to run away from ownership responsibility with a big cheque. The latest reason they gave was fear of dilution.
This is because their 21% holding is way too big for them and their members wallets. It is hard to understand why they did not recognise this. It always was. They had a bonkers strategy of going for 25% holding with no cash never imagining that investment would be needed. They were on the fantastical Huw Jenkins magical mystery tour. It ran out of gas after 15 years. Now investment is on the cards the SCST have no where to go. Fighters fight and runners run.
They could still chip in £400k and get 5% return if they want the interest. £20k a year interest. Fisher costs about that apparently. They are getting 3% of that in the Santander (according to accounts). They have the money.
Exeter city fans give their club £75k years as a gift. They do not want the money back and ask for no interest, They do not buy shares with it. Swansea was just too successful. They need business advice and a review of their strategy from professionals. Like Silverstein actually. |
- The trust aren't either. That big cheque can only ever be used in relation to SCFC. And yes dilution isn't a good option for the trust. Even less ideal when they haven't been consulted on the full process.
- well only if you're against football clubs living beyond their means. The club went through its most successful years without the owners pumping money in. The trust didn't always have 21%, 25% is and was a good target. Well they do have somewhere to go, take their rightful money before the holding and their asset gets devalued. That is fighting for the club's future.
- well they can't because the Americans didn't invite them to, won't give them the details to, nor probably allow because it means Silverstein wouldn't get the full bang for his convertible loan. It's not in their interest to allow it and they are the decision makers. Plus of course back to this ridiculous point - the trust would rather takea lower interest rate off a bank than the club. Because they are s supporters trust. Not a profit machine got a private consortium.
- the trust gave the club 200k previously. The club has access to business and specialist advice. They've spent money gaining it. Don't see what or why Silverstein would aid the trust in any of their endevours. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 20:47 - Jan 7 with 486 views | max936 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 20:30 - Jan 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If he wants his £5m back he fills in a form and gives to to Winter. The US people are not running away. From what I hear from Chief the Swansea fans want to run away from ownership responsibility with a big cheque. The latest reason they gave was fear of dilution.
This is because their 21% holding is way too big for them and their members wallets. It is hard to understand why they did not recognise this. It always was. They had a bonkers strategy of going for 25% holding with no cash never imagining that investment would be needed. They were on the fantastical Huw Jenkins magical mystery tour. It ran out of gas after 15 years. Now investment is on the cards the SCST have no where to go. Fighters fight and runners run.
They could still chip in £400k and get 5% return if they want the interest. £20k a year interest. Fisher costs about that apparently. They are getting 3% of that in the Santander (according to accounts). They have the money.
Exeter city fans give their club £75k years as a gift. They do not want the money back and ask for no interest, They do not buy shares with it. Swansea was just too successful. They need business advice and a review of their strategy from professionals. Like Silverstein actually. |
Shutup just shut the f-up with you constant digs at the Trust, everyone can see right through you, the Trust was setup and is there if ever a time comes when the club falls back into the desperate times of the Petty day's, you know the rest, but keep harping on ignoring FACTS, we all know you got an agenda, but you need to look closer at yourself and your mates, for answers and criticise them.
Stop creating endless threads and spoiling threads with the same rhetoric over and over about the same subject daily, Boring Boring Boring. Take your agenda elsewhere. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 21:00 - Jan 7 with 478 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 20:44 - Jan 7 by Chief |
- The trust aren't either. That big cheque can only ever be used in relation to SCFC. And yes dilution isn't a good option for the trust. Even less ideal when they haven't been consulted on the full process.
- well only if you're against football clubs living beyond their means. The club went through its most successful years without the owners pumping money in. The trust didn't always have 21%, 25% is and was a good target. Well they do have somewhere to go, take their rightful money before the holding and their asset gets devalued. That is fighting for the club's future.
- well they can't because the Americans didn't invite them to, won't give them the details to, nor probably allow because it means Silverstein wouldn't get the full bang for his convertible loan. It's not in their interest to allow it and they are the decision makers. Plus of course back to this ridiculous point - the trust would rather takea lower interest rate off a bank than the club. Because they are s supporters trust. Not a profit machine got a private consortium.
- the trust gave the club 200k previously. The club has access to business and specialist advice. They've spent money gaining it. Don't see what or why Silverstein would aid the trust in any of their endevours. |
They will never be of any use to the club is they have no financial acumen. There is no problem getting money off the club if it commits to give it back at a later date.
You know but will not admit the funders and legal people will probably take over 30% of any claim win. The case is unnecessary and in the interests of the funders and legal people from England not the SCST, Wales and definitely not the club .
The £400k in Santaner will gain them £600 pa. In the CLN it will give them £20,000 per year. If they take the interest it will not have any effect on Silverstein's holding. Silverstein and co will just have to find the Trusts interest.
Sadly it seems the SCST priorities are elsewhere. They seem to have lost their way. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 21:01]
| |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 21:08 - Jan 7 with 470 views | Whiterockin |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 20:47 - Jan 7 by max936 |
Shutup just shut the f-up with you constant digs at the Trust, everyone can see right through you, the Trust was setup and is there if ever a time comes when the club falls back into the desperate times of the Petty day's, you know the rest, but keep harping on ignoring FACTS, we all know you got an agenda, but you need to look closer at yourself and your mates, for answers and criticise them.
Stop creating endless threads and spoiling threads with the same rhetoric over and over about the same subject daily, Boring Boring Boring. Take your agenda elsewhere. |
100% agree. I don't even read his posts anymore. I think he should realise he is now doing more harm to his cause than good. | | | |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 21:15 - Jan 7 with 461 views | Chief |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 21:00 - Jan 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They will never be of any use to the club is they have no financial acumen. There is no problem getting money off the club if it commits to give it back at a later date.
You know but will not admit the funders and legal people will probably take over 30% of any claim win. The case is unnecessary and in the interests of the funders and legal people from England not the SCST, Wales and definitely not the club .
The £400k in Santaner will gain them £600 pa. In the CLN it will give them £20,000 per year. If they take the interest it will not have any effect on Silverstein's holding. Silverstein and co will just have to find the Trusts interest.
Sadly it seems the SCST priorities are elsewhere. They seem to have lost their way. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 21:01]
|
- financial acumen isn't the only thing needed or desired in ownership. You say Silverstein provides the business acumen so why are you moaning? As I saying taking money in any form when it can't apparently afford fairly modest transfer fees isn't a good option.
- no I don't at all. Neither do you. For a start the judge could order losers to pay costs, you can't deny that isn't widespread. The care isn't unnecessary, it's in the interests of the trust and the club. Hey don't worry, too many mixed messages. You don't want the trust as shareholders. You may get your wish. The nationality of the professionals the trust or the Americans engage in the case is of zero interest or consequence to me. Shouldn't be to you either.
- as I say the trust would rather take less interest off a bank rather than taking it from the club (which has been repeatedly explained to you is the Americans decision and not in their interests anyway).
- unfounded and unsubstantiated. The reason for the case is to ensure the future of the club. Which has always been the trust's remit.
Extreme lack of addressing points once again Resloven. Plenty of generic copy and pasting going on. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 21:19 - Jan 7 with 457 views | max936 |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 21:08 - Jan 7 by Whiterockin |
100% agree. I don't even read his posts anymore. I think he should realise he is now doing more harm to his cause than good. |
" I don't even read his posts anymore" Very good idea, that myself and a few other should subscribe to. | |
| |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 21:49 - Jan 7 with 445 views | BillyChong |
| Silverstein, I’m confident, are you ? on 20:30 - Jan 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If he wants his £5m back he fills in a form and gives to to Winter. The US people are not running away. From what I hear from Chief the Swansea fans want to run away from ownership responsibility with a big cheque. The latest reason they gave was fear of dilution.
This is because their 21% holding is way too big for them and their members wallets. It is hard to understand why they did not recognise this. It always was. They had a bonkers strategy of going for 25% holding with no cash never imagining that investment would be needed. They were on the fantastical Huw Jenkins magical mystery tour. It ran out of gas after 15 years. Now investment is on the cards the SCST have no where to go. Fighters fight and runners run.
They could still chip in £400k and get 5% return if they want the interest. £20k a year interest. Fisher costs about that apparently. They are getting 3% of that in the Santander (according to accounts). They have the money.
Exeter city fans give their club £75k years as a gift. They do not want the money back and ask for no interest, They do not buy shares with it. Swansea was just too successful. They need business advice and a review of their strategy from professionals. Like Silverstein actually. |
Yet the Americans hold a far bigger stake than the Trust and do not have any cash of their own, hence the loans. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
