| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday 11:22 - Apr 19 with 8711 views | vetchonian |
I notived Kristian O leary was sat on hte bench yesterday with a earpiece has he been promoted to the first team coaching staff? |  |
| |  |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:50 - Apr 22 with 1502 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:09 - Apr 22 by Chief |
Again, and I know you're being deliberately twp on this but I'll repeat: ignorance and assumptions do not work in law and business. They evidently assumed incorrectly if this was their thinking (which it wasn't) which is again a terrible way to conduct business. No businessman would ever assume that someone wouldn't want to sell something and then not approach them because the prospective sellers stated a year previously, under differing circumstances that they didn't want to sell.
But you're making this up anyway, the sellouts or Americans have never once cited this as the reason they colluded in the deception. Even earlier in this thread you've said it's because thru frightened of the trust scaring them off.
I've been asking to you this question for years:
If they were all so confident that the trust didn't want to sell, then why weren't they consulted at the same time as everyone else? If they were convinced the trust would not sell anyway, what harm could it have done?
Completely and utterly flawed excuse. |
The Trust did not sell. It is not difficult to understand why not. The court case did not go ahead and that should not be a surprise either. The narrative of the Trust being deceived was weak. Things do not happen for a reason.
The current Trust management did well in my opinion as long as 'the Golden 5%' can be converted into cash at some point. |  |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 23:15 - Apr 22 with 1487 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:50 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust did not sell. It is not difficult to understand why not. The court case did not go ahead and that should not be a surprise either. The narrative of the Trust being deceived was weak. Things do not happen for a reason.
The current Trust management did well in my opinion as long as 'the Golden 5%' can be converted into cash at some point. |
- no they didn't because they didn't receive a bid from the Americans that was the same as what the sellouts received and the nearest bid was rescinded quickly, despite negotiations going on for months. They were thus disadvantaged because they were not included in the initial negotiations when the Americans first made contact.
- it was a surprise because the members voted for it and we were told repeatedly that preparations were underway to the point that papers were lodged with the court. The fact the current board acted against the members wishes was a huge surprise to everyone.
- it wasn't and isn't weak. It's factual. You've admitted it yourself. You said the sellouts did it fear of the trust scaring off the Americans. In doing so they deceived the trust, colluding to keep the approach away from them.
- as you've said previously, what they've received from this deal is pointless. There's not even a guarantee that any of these conditions apply if the Americans sell the holding company. The million pound on promotion to the prem? - they don't know where it's coming from or who's paying it. Could be the club itself. How's that good for the club!? |  |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:59 - Apr 23 with 1415 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 23:15 - Apr 22 by Chief |
- no they didn't because they didn't receive a bid from the Americans that was the same as what the sellouts received and the nearest bid was rescinded quickly, despite negotiations going on for months. They were thus disadvantaged because they were not included in the initial negotiations when the Americans first made contact.
- it was a surprise because the members voted for it and we were told repeatedly that preparations were underway to the point that papers were lodged with the court. The fact the current board acted against the members wishes was a huge surprise to everyone.
- it wasn't and isn't weak. It's factual. You've admitted it yourself. You said the sellouts did it fear of the trust scaring off the Americans. In doing so they deceived the trust, colluding to keep the approach away from them.
- as you've said previously, what they've received from this deal is pointless. There's not even a guarantee that any of these conditions apply if the Americans sell the holding company. The million pound on promotion to the prem? - they don't know where it's coming from or who's paying it. Could be the club itself. How's that good for the club!? |
I was not surprised at the Trust climb down and in fact predicted it. The offer from the funders was extortionate and rightly rejected. The fees were so high because the case was not so strong.
This is generally accepted. Individual members had nothing personally to lose. Had the Trust gone bankrupt few members would lose sleep over it I suspect. This makes people brave. It is not an healthy situation. The members are to blame for the climb down not the new board who live to fight another day and learn from their mistakes. I recommend the appointment of a business consultant to come up with a strategy and set of business principles that the members can agree to allow rapid decision making.
The best way for the Trust to flourish is a successful united club. The club appears more united now than ever in my 40 years of following Swansea city. One of the principles to be agreed is that the club is not sold as part of a "leveraged buyout" . This means the club bought with borrowed money and the debt put on the club. (Burnley FC / Manchester United). Burnley are 'toast' if relegated I suspect. with the club owing £70m extra from the takeover.
The sellers you call 'sellouts' made sure this did not happen at Swansea. You give them no credit. The seller will do this again if need be as local people. I regard the current US owners as about the best people to own Swansea city. They are operating on the same principles as before and they have learned on the job. They inputted £10m+ to get over the Covid crisis and given Martin and Cooper decent budgets in the transfer market. The club has no debts is now united with a strong philosophy.
The Trust are in the same place as other local shareholders. They have a common interest. They now need to network over a beer and a curry. This sort of interpersonal skills can benefit all. If you want a guarantee sell the club to the Welsh Government. Only they can give guarantees. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 11:16 - Apr 24 with 1372 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:59 - Apr 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I was not surprised at the Trust climb down and in fact predicted it. The offer from the funders was extortionate and rightly rejected. The fees were so high because the case was not so strong.
This is generally accepted. Individual members had nothing personally to lose. Had the Trust gone bankrupt few members would lose sleep over it I suspect. This makes people brave. It is not an healthy situation. The members are to blame for the climb down not the new board who live to fight another day and learn from their mistakes. I recommend the appointment of a business consultant to come up with a strategy and set of business principles that the members can agree to allow rapid decision making.
The best way for the Trust to flourish is a successful united club. The club appears more united now than ever in my 40 years of following Swansea city. One of the principles to be agreed is that the club is not sold as part of a "leveraged buyout" . This means the club bought with borrowed money and the debt put on the club. (Burnley FC / Manchester United). Burnley are 'toast' if relegated I suspect. with the club owing £70m extra from the takeover.
The sellers you call 'sellouts' made sure this did not happen at Swansea. You give them no credit. The seller will do this again if need be as local people. I regard the current US owners as about the best people to own Swansea city. They are operating on the same principles as before and they have learned on the job. They inputted £10m+ to get over the Covid crisis and given Martin and Cooper decent budgets in the transfer market. The club has no debts is now united with a strong philosophy.
The Trust are in the same place as other local shareholders. They have a common interest. They now need to network over a beer and a curry. This sort of interpersonal skills can benefit all. If you want a guarantee sell the club to the Welsh Government. Only they can give guarantees. |
- false. A QC stated it was a 'strong case'. Evidended by the fact that the sellouts settled. Something was obviously put to the trust from the American side / sellouts that they would appeal and stall. The strength of the case (and I doubt a QC would actually go on record to say a case was anything more than strong) was probably irrelevant by the end. Just the sellouts/Americans were going to evade justice by outspending the trust. The system is wrong and unfair and the result goes against a lot of mantras you claim to buy into. A multinational entity with large resources outspending a supporters trust made up of local fans by outspending them. You should be ashamed and embarrassed to have endorsed such a thing.
- well this trust board weren't brave enough to proceed with court action so that invalidates your second paragraph. The trust engaged a specialist in legal matters but you were against that.
- as I've said to you previously (but you conveniently ignore) without confirmation that a sale of the holding company would give the trust it's cut, it's completely irrelevant. As was the deal they signed. The dream is a united club but I don't want a lapdog trust endorsing everything the owners do. Do you envisage this trust board publishing any criticism of the club operation? I don't. And that's bad, they've given up their role as a relevant voice of the fans with their betrayal and NDA signing. Interesting to see how they react to the Allen sacking. United club lol.
- Burnley bingo again. Funny you don't mention Sheff Utd in these comparisons. A club that owns their stadium. How much are they being sold for?
- the club is in at least £10mill debt. You know this..
- yes this cosy networking I assume is already at play. I'm sure sycophant head of trust and his mate Huw have had several lovely meals together. And in doing so have knowingly partaken in a disgusting dereliction of their duties as a supporters trust. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:11 - Apr 24 with 1351 views | Whiterockin |
I wish there was a button like the ignore where we could ignore threads and they would just disappear. |  | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:53 - Apr 24 with 1326 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 11:16 - Apr 24 by Chief |
- false. A QC stated it was a 'strong case'. Evidended by the fact that the sellouts settled. Something was obviously put to the trust from the American side / sellouts that they would appeal and stall. The strength of the case (and I doubt a QC would actually go on record to say a case was anything more than strong) was probably irrelevant by the end. Just the sellouts/Americans were going to evade justice by outspending the trust. The system is wrong and unfair and the result goes against a lot of mantras you claim to buy into. A multinational entity with large resources outspending a supporters trust made up of local fans by outspending them. You should be ashamed and embarrassed to have endorsed such a thing.
- well this trust board weren't brave enough to proceed with court action so that invalidates your second paragraph. The trust engaged a specialist in legal matters but you were against that.
- as I've said to you previously (but you conveniently ignore) without confirmation that a sale of the holding company would give the trust it's cut, it's completely irrelevant. As was the deal they signed. The dream is a united club but I don't want a lapdog trust endorsing everything the owners do. Do you envisage this trust board publishing any criticism of the club operation? I don't. And that's bad, they've given up their role as a relevant voice of the fans with their betrayal and NDA signing. Interesting to see how they react to the Allen sacking. United club lol.
- Burnley bingo again. Funny you don't mention Sheff Utd in these comparisons. A club that owns their stadium. How much are they being sold for?
- the club is in at least £10mill debt. You know this..
- yes this cosy networking I assume is already at play. I'm sure sycophant head of trust and his mate Huw have had several lovely meals together. And in doing so have knowingly partaken in a disgusting dereliction of their duties as a supporters trust. |
The Trust should have settled in 2015 -2016 ideally selling some shares. They never had enough money to go to court and wasted £400k and 6 years of time to come to the conclusion that they could not find anyone to fund their court case entirely.
The costs were exorbitant and they gave up when told extra money was required either from members themselves or from selling their own shares. The only persons interested in buying Swansea city shares are Mr Silverstein, the Levien group and Mr Jenkins and Mr Morgan. They would be buying club shares off the Trust to enable the Trust to sue them. An absurd concept.
I suspect you are political person and after abject failure blames the capitalist system. I suspect political motivated people prefer the Exeter city model which is low aspiration and committee run. They sold Watkins, Ampadu and Grimes £60m of talent for £5m,
Bravery did not come into it the case. It lacked logic which i investigated fully. Only on man objected in the last board meeting. There is always one who is sensible and prepared to speak. I get hardly any support but that is the way it has to be.
Sale of the holding company is possible but irrelevant. Buyers normally want the whole package. Silverstein is probably not part of the holding company and he is the most likely buyer or at least has contacts with the likely buyer. The Trust get on well with him it seems. They can do business together and cut deals.
The use of the word 'lapdog' is traditional divisive fan speak and not valid. The SCST is an owner not a trade union official. The Trust effectively is the voice of the customers not the workers. There was considerable reservations about the BLM links to the club seen on this forum. That never got through to Mr Birch.
Thank you for directing me to Sheff utd. I will read up on the matter.
The £10m debt to the club will be gone soon when the CLN term ends. The cost will be paid for by the Trust being diluted and they will receive a £500k goodwill payment for the loses of the 5-6% holding. There will be no sale of actual shares. They either had to accept dilution or fight to keep the holding by investing Defending a 21% holding was impossible for them. The Trust assumed the US people would not invest a 'dime'. They were wrong.
The new Trust leadership hopefully do not dance to the tune of the dim east stand political radicals talking BS using biblical phrases picked up in valleys Sunday schools. Huw Jenkins is a club hero. It went a bit wrong at the end with bad luck and a few bad signings but he gave the club the greatest era in the clubs history. Sensible educated people need to wrestle the narrative off the activists that are never satisfied.
The Board should be a consensual arrangement with people working together for mutual benefit. The club does not want one part of the board meeting 45 minutes before the Trust arrive. You talk like a trade union official not an owner. The reality is Mr Jenkins and Mr Morgan have identical interests to the Trust. They all want the club to flourish and sell their shares for the maximum price. This will not be to a buyer borrowing money to buy the club and making the club pay for the loan. (Burnley /Man Utd).
The Trust thankfully will not be engaged in a proxy south Wales battlefield of Socialism where champagne socialists hand over half the Trust holding to London luvvie third parties in costs. Have you seen the price of an old council house in Camden?. That money is staying in Swansea. Cymru am byth. [Post edited 24 Apr 2022 14:03]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:30 - Apr 24 with 1304 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:17 - Apr 24 by Treforys_Jack |
Just an ordinary fan  |
Not an ordinary fans for sure. The 'ordinary fans' were quite happy to give away £10.5m of effectively the clubs money to the well healed London financial and legal institutions for no good reason. Had they any idea of what to do with the money might have been a bonus. They kicked that can down the road.
The Trust had a logic deficit and kicked the can down the road for 6 years unable to make sense of the legal case. The new board were left a jigsaw that did not fit with pieces from the wrong box. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 15:42 - Apr 24 with 1279 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:53 - Apr 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust should have settled in 2015 -2016 ideally selling some shares. They never had enough money to go to court and wasted £400k and 6 years of time to come to the conclusion that they could not find anyone to fund their court case entirely.
The costs were exorbitant and they gave up when told extra money was required either from members themselves or from selling their own shares. The only persons interested in buying Swansea city shares are Mr Silverstein, the Levien group and Mr Jenkins and Mr Morgan. They would be buying club shares off the Trust to enable the Trust to sue them. An absurd concept.
I suspect you are political person and after abject failure blames the capitalist system. I suspect political motivated people prefer the Exeter city model which is low aspiration and committee run. They sold Watkins, Ampadu and Grimes £60m of talent for £5m,
Bravery did not come into it the case. It lacked logic which i investigated fully. Only on man objected in the last board meeting. There is always one who is sensible and prepared to speak. I get hardly any support but that is the way it has to be.
Sale of the holding company is possible but irrelevant. Buyers normally want the whole package. Silverstein is probably not part of the holding company and he is the most likely buyer or at least has contacts with the likely buyer. The Trust get on well with him it seems. They can do business together and cut deals.
The use of the word 'lapdog' is traditional divisive fan speak and not valid. The SCST is an owner not a trade union official. The Trust effectively is the voice of the customers not the workers. There was considerable reservations about the BLM links to the club seen on this forum. That never got through to Mr Birch.
Thank you for directing me to Sheff utd. I will read up on the matter.
The £10m debt to the club will be gone soon when the CLN term ends. The cost will be paid for by the Trust being diluted and they will receive a £500k goodwill payment for the loses of the 5-6% holding. There will be no sale of actual shares. They either had to accept dilution or fight to keep the holding by investing Defending a 21% holding was impossible for them. The Trust assumed the US people would not invest a 'dime'. They were wrong.
The new Trust leadership hopefully do not dance to the tune of the dim east stand political radicals talking BS using biblical phrases picked up in valleys Sunday schools. Huw Jenkins is a club hero. It went a bit wrong at the end with bad luck and a few bad signings but he gave the club the greatest era in the clubs history. Sensible educated people need to wrestle the narrative off the activists that are never satisfied.
The Board should be a consensual arrangement with people working together for mutual benefit. The club does not want one part of the board meeting 45 minutes before the Trust arrive. You talk like a trade union official not an owner. The reality is Mr Jenkins and Mr Morgan have identical interests to the Trust. They all want the club to flourish and sell their shares for the maximum price. This will not be to a buyer borrowing money to buy the club and making the club pay for the loan. (Burnley /Man Utd).
The Trust thankfully will not be engaged in a proxy south Wales battlefield of Socialism where champagne socialists hand over half the Trust holding to London luvvie third parties in costs. Have you seen the price of an old council house in Camden?. That money is staying in Swansea. Cymru am byth. [Post edited 24 Apr 2022 14:03]
|
- they couldn't sell then because there was no buyer. The only potential buyer didn't eventually bid for anyone's shares and was deemed unsuitable owners anyway , so moot point. Waste of time writing it.
- The trust had enough capital to fund a straight forward case, whether they could have funded a case against a entities with more resources dragging their heels and lodging appeals is a different matter.
- do you want to rethink the suing bit? The thing you've described there is absurd because it's a bizarre interpretation of events.
- I take an interest in politics but that's entirely irrelevant to my viewpoint m I just want justice. You're the one who kept banging on another the nationality of legal counsel, not me. You've lost the plot now. Are you blaming exrer supporters trust for underselling talent? They're a league 2 club. Since when do league 2 clubs sell players for millions!?
- yes because most see your extreme bias and snuff out your agenda. But no you're right the current trust board were not brave.
- how's it irrelevant? If the deal the trust signed doesn't apply to the holding company being sold, then it's completely pathetic. It's not just relevant it's vital. The trust seemingly had a decent relationship with the sellouts too, but look how that turned out. I have zero doubt the trust would be deceived again should it be in the Americans interests to do so. They've done it before.
- they are an owner but they're also a supporters trust. They do not appear to be carrying out the latter very effectively these days having betrayed the members and publishing joint statements that reference action against the club which is factually inaccurate shows lapdog tendencies to me. I'll ignore the irrelevant BLM stuff.
- yea look up how much they are being sold for. Might put your Burnley nonsense to bed.
- we'll see. It's been well over a year and counting, still no conversion. The legal action has gone and yet still no timescale. Actions speak louder than words. Can you point me to where the trust said the Americans would never invest please?
- we already know the current trust board don't listen to the members so don't know why you've mentioned that. 'dim' hmm and you claim to be a fan yourself! This also seems like devisive language to me. You're a joke. As is Huw. Scurrying around doctoring meeting minutes and trying to retrospectively invalidate agreements. Pathetic. As everyone keeps telling you his overall performance as chairman and his conduct as an owner are separate issues.
- inane wafflings in the next paragraph. And it's complete ballux too. Huw and Morgan have betrayed the trust brgotr despite having identical aims. So that invalidates all your working together rubbish. The trust should never trust those men again.
- you say Cymru am byth but you were all for a multi national conglomerate screwing over the local supporters trust. You really don't help yourself with all tripe you type. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 15:48 - Apr 24 with 1274 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:30 - Apr 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Not an ordinary fans for sure. The 'ordinary fans' were quite happy to give away £10.5m of effectively the clubs money to the well healed London financial and legal institutions for no good reason. Had they any idea of what to do with the money might have been a bonus. They kicked that can down the road.
The Trust had a logic deficit and kicked the can down the road for 6 years unable to make sense of the legal case. The new board were left a jigsaw that did not fit with pieces from the wrong box. |
- giving away £10.5million? Fabrication. You were happy for the local supporters trust to be screwed over by a multinational conglomerate so don't get on your nationality hypocritical soapbox.
The fact the sellouts settled admitting guilt means verifies the fact that there was very good reason to bring action.
- the new board had a mandate to fulfill and decided to betray the members instead. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:17 - Apr 24 with 1255 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 15:48 - Apr 24 by Chief |
- giving away £10.5million? Fabrication. You were happy for the local supporters trust to be screwed over by a multinational conglomerate so don't get on your nationality hypocritical soapbox.
The fact the sellouts settled admitting guilt means verifies the fact that there was very good reason to bring action.
- the new board had a mandate to fulfill and decided to betray the members instead. |
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Abraham Lincoln.
When push came to shove they made a deal which was not so great but better than nothing. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:35 - Apr 24 with 1235 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:17 - Apr 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Abraham Lincoln.
When push came to shove they made a deal which was not so great but better than nothing. |
Not so sure about that. It's possible that doing nothing and thereby maintaining modicum of integrity and respect of the members could be better than this | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 23:47 - Apr 24 with 1216 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:35 - Apr 24 by Chief |
Not so sure about that. It's possible that doing nothing and thereby maintaining modicum of integrity and respect of the members could be better than this |
What was your end game in your ideal world Chief?. The architects of the modern Swansea city are not going anywhere in the near future, possibly around for another 20 -30 years.
The Trust gets £10m and disappears into the distance. Devaluing by 7% a year and with few friends membership would plummet. They will await Armageddon like some strange religious cult. It will re emerge from the ashes as the new Exeter City. A 'know your place 'Welsh club for "know your place Welsh people" that lowered its expectations and did not really compete.
£500k is decent business and the 5% could be a master stoke or a howler depending on the small print. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 07:26 - Apr 25 with 1182 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 23:47 - Apr 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
What was your end game in your ideal world Chief?. The architects of the modern Swansea city are not going anywhere in the near future, possibly around for another 20 -30 years.
The Trust gets £10m and disappears into the distance. Devaluing by 7% a year and with few friends membership would plummet. They will await Armageddon like some strange religious cult. It will re emerge from the ashes as the new Exeter City. A 'know your place 'Welsh club for "know your place Welsh people" that lowered its expectations and did not really compete.
£500k is decent business and the 5% could be a master stoke or a howler depending on the small print. |
- I assume you're referring to Morgan and Jenkins. They're aging men and minority shareholders. But whether they're still around or not is irrelevant. End game was to go to court and obtain a decent sized fund to actually make a difference and be constructive with.
- the trust have already disappeared into the distance with this deal frankly. I don't trust this lot to fulfill their duties aa a supporters trust. So they're useless. As a shareholder they'll have to meekly accept dilution now (if they ever convert). Yes the trust knew their place alright. Weakly accepting this flawed deal which they don't fully understand themselves.
- small print which they don't seem to have read themselves. As I say the holding company sale aspect is crucial and there's no way they should have signed off the million pound bonus upon promotion unless they know for certain and put in a legally binding contract that it does not come from club funds. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:45 - Apr 25 with 1152 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 07:26 - Apr 25 by Chief |
- I assume you're referring to Morgan and Jenkins. They're aging men and minority shareholders. But whether they're still around or not is irrelevant. End game was to go to court and obtain a decent sized fund to actually make a difference and be constructive with.
- the trust have already disappeared into the distance with this deal frankly. I don't trust this lot to fulfill their duties aa a supporters trust. So they're useless. As a shareholder they'll have to meekly accept dilution now (if they ever convert). Yes the trust knew their place alright. Weakly accepting this flawed deal which they don't fully understand themselves.
- small print which they don't seem to have read themselves. As I say the holding company sale aspect is crucial and there's no way they should have signed off the million pound bonus upon promotion unless they know for certain and put in a legally binding contract that it does not come from club funds. |
Morgan and Jenkins are architects of the rise of Swansea city. Under their leadership Swansea had 14 good seasons out of 15. Unprecedented. They gave the Trust a 10,000 % return on the holding and put US buyers on a table in front of the them twice. They sold the club to good people that bought the club with cash and no debt.
The 'useless' ones were the ones who failed to sell even one of their shares in the Premier league for 7 years. Not one word of selling from the Trust 2010 -2016.
You do not understand 'dilution'. It is part of business in down times just as dividend are in good times. The Trust accept the gig in 2002 and gladly took the dividends in 2014 or so. To avoid dilution the Trust had to invest as in general maintenance. Holding 21% was never viable as it could not be supported.
"meekly accepting dilution" suggests a poor understanding of business. Its like "meekly accepting getting old". It is not a 'hostile act' it is fact of life. You have the familiar "free lunch mentality" which goes with the welfare state. Responsible fans failed to tell the fans of the facts of life. My duty is to inform them that they are still in a very good place having narrowly avoided being taken to the cleaners by sharp suited business opportunists from Old London town eager to make a fast £10m+. I do not blame them at all. Business is business. [Post edited 25 Apr 2022 13:50]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:35 - Apr 25 with 1137 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:45 - Apr 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Morgan and Jenkins are architects of the rise of Swansea city. Under their leadership Swansea had 14 good seasons out of 15. Unprecedented. They gave the Trust a 10,000 % return on the holding and put US buyers on a table in front of the them twice. They sold the club to good people that bought the club with cash and no debt.
The 'useless' ones were the ones who failed to sell even one of their shares in the Premier league for 7 years. Not one word of selling from the Trust 2010 -2016.
You do not understand 'dilution'. It is part of business in down times just as dividend are in good times. The Trust accept the gig in 2002 and gladly took the dividends in 2014 or so. To avoid dilution the Trust had to invest as in general maintenance. Holding 21% was never viable as it could not be supported.
"meekly accepting dilution" suggests a poor understanding of business. Its like "meekly accepting getting old". It is not a 'hostile act' it is fact of life. You have the familiar "free lunch mentality" which goes with the welfare state. Responsible fans failed to tell the fans of the facts of life. My duty is to inform them that they are still in a very good place having narrowly avoided being taken to the cleaners by sharp suited business opportunists from Old London town eager to make a fast £10m+. I do not blame them at all. Business is business. [Post edited 25 Apr 2022 13:50]
|
- they ran the club for their own good and as s result all shareholders including the trust's holding increased in value. Everyone lauded Huws performance including the trust. Unfortunately the trust weren't allowed the same opportunity as even the likes of Katzen for example who besides being part of the consortium who paid off Petty, what did he contribute? Don't think he had much day to day involvement, certainly nothing compared to the trust.
- the trust didn't need or want to sell under the previous share structure. In an ideal world they'd never want to sell. But the circumstances changed and which lead to them being disadvantaged and marginalised through no fault of their own.
- empty slur there. I see you haven't backed up how or why you don't think I understand it. False, the trust actually voted against dividends. Get your facts right. The trust didn't willingly accept the 2016 gig though did? Which was very different to the 2002 ownership make up. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
- yet another empty slur with no substantiation. Well you can meekly accept getting old but getting old is an fact of life whereas dilution wasn't so that last paragraph is really silly even by your standards. Funny you never accuse the likes of Katzen of a 'Free lunch'. Your complete lack of awareness showing through brightly again. Inanely banging on about where specialists engaged by the trust are from while lauding a multinational conglomerate with larger resources who deceived the local supporters trust. Its bonkers. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:56 - Apr 25 with 1133 views | Treforys_Jack |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:35 - Apr 25 by Chief |
- they ran the club for their own good and as s result all shareholders including the trust's holding increased in value. Everyone lauded Huws performance including the trust. Unfortunately the trust weren't allowed the same opportunity as even the likes of Katzen for example who besides being part of the consortium who paid off Petty, what did he contribute? Don't think he had much day to day involvement, certainly nothing compared to the trust.
- the trust didn't need or want to sell under the previous share structure. In an ideal world they'd never want to sell. But the circumstances changed and which lead to them being disadvantaged and marginalised through no fault of their own.
- empty slur there. I see you haven't backed up how or why you don't think I understand it. False, the trust actually voted against dividends. Get your facts right. The trust didn't willingly accept the 2016 gig though did? Which was very different to the 2002 ownership make up. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
- yet another empty slur with no substantiation. Well you can meekly accept getting old but getting old is an fact of life whereas dilution wasn't so that last paragraph is really silly even by your standards. Funny you never accuse the likes of Katzen of a 'Free lunch'. Your complete lack of awareness showing through brightly again. Inanely banging on about where specialists engaged by the trust are from while lauding a multinational conglomerate with larger resources who deceived the local supporters trust. Its bonkers. |
Cut him some slack Chief, he's just an ordinary fan. |  | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 15:51 - Apr 25 with 1114 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:56 - Apr 25 by Treforys_Jack |
Cut him some slack Chief, he's just an ordinary fan. |
Who says I an an ordinary fan? I am not and never claimed to be. I respect success and good management and do not accept poor management and excuses.
Do members actually understand what has been agreed on their behalf without consultation? If I was a member I would want the document to be published and explained.
The Chief tends to spread more heat than light. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 16:13 - Apr 25 with 1101 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 15:51 - Apr 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Who says I an an ordinary fan? I am not and never claimed to be. I respect success and good management and do not accept poor management and excuses.
Do members actually understand what has been agreed on their behalf without consultation? If I was a member I would want the document to be published and explained.
The Chief tends to spread more heat than light. |
- you've made the claim that you're just a fan repeatedly.
- yet you accept excuses as to why the Americans/ sellouts acted the way did leaving themselves open to litigation due to their poor business practice.
-it seems the trust themselves don't necessarily know what they signed. The questions have been asked, not all answered satisfactorily. But obviously retrospectively and pretty irrelevant now. There was no consultation.
- yes thanks I am on fire disproving your fabrications and disingenuity. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:13 - Apr 25 with 1083 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 16:13 - Apr 25 by Chief |
- you've made the claim that you're just a fan repeatedly.
- yet you accept excuses as to why the Americans/ sellouts acted the way did leaving themselves open to litigation due to their poor business practice.
-it seems the trust themselves don't necessarily know what they signed. The questions have been asked, not all answered satisfactorily. But obviously retrospectively and pretty irrelevant now. There was no consultation.
- yes thanks I am on fire disproving your fabrications and disingenuity. |
I am a fan but not an ordinary fan. The ordinary fans and member of the Trust do not seem bothered what happens to their organisation. You appear to have come to the same conclusion.
The Trust cannot make deals and work too slowly. Swansea city cannot work at their pace. I understand entirely the sellers. They feared in 2016 the Trust would chase away the buyer. They did exactly this in 2017. Too slow and too flakey.
It took longer than Brexit to make a deal and not a very good one it seems. They wanted protection from dilution. Why? (no one else has this as far as I know) It has been set at an unachievable level of 5%. Its a notional concept.
Next level is the Convertible loan note. The investment the activist said would never happen. Kaplan is very rich. Swansea will not go bust on his watch but he will not inject massive money either. The US people will "sweat" the asset and see where it takes them. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:31 - Apr 25 with 1077 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:13 - Apr 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am a fan but not an ordinary fan. The ordinary fans and member of the Trust do not seem bothered what happens to their organisation. You appear to have come to the same conclusion.
The Trust cannot make deals and work too slowly. Swansea city cannot work at their pace. I understand entirely the sellers. They feared in 2016 the Trust would chase away the buyer. They did exactly this in 2017. Too slow and too flakey.
It took longer than Brexit to make a deal and not a very good one it seems. They wanted protection from dilution. Why? (no one else has this as far as I know) It has been set at an unachievable level of 5%. Its a notional concept.
Next level is the Convertible loan note. The investment the activist said would never happen. Kaplan is very rich. Swansea will not go bust on his watch but he will not inject massive money either. The US people will "sweat" the asset and see where it takes them. |
- all the members were bothered, extremely bothered. Unfortunately the new board in my opinion gave up any hope of a strong meaningful trust and didn't even consult the members. So yes it's difficult to care anymore but they're an irrelevance. You've advocated for them to be completely wound up in the past so don't pretend you really care.
-the current trust board made a deal fast enough so again nonsense and I understand why the sellouts did what they did. Everyone does. Doesn't mean they should have been allowed to do it though, or escape criticism. Another complete cop out to pretend it was down to the trust apparently taking time to make decisions. The sellouts were apparently negotiating with the Americans for nearly a year so to pretend there was no time to engage the trust is laughable.
- the trust chased away a buyer in 2017!? What are you on about? It was the Americans who made offers, altered them, then withdrew it in the space of a few days. That's the epitome of flakey and indecision.
- we'll take it up with the Americans/ sellouts. The trust tried to sort this year's ago but the claimants decided not to attend mediation and the hokey kokey bids. They extended the whole process, far longer than needed. Why would they want to get diluted? They were prevented from selling when the others did, they made their coin, they don't need protection. The trust are in this position due to the actions of others through no fault of their own. Nobody would want to lose percentages and have zero say in it.
- it's not investment yet. It's a loan. The trust asked for particulars at its inception and got nothing and now during the recent deal negotiations, they still wouldn't be drawn on when conversion may happen. What the fvck is the rest of that last paragraph!? Are you saying they've invested or not? First you say they have, then you say Kaplan won't invest much, then the owners are sweating the asset. Is loaning the club £10mill plus constitute 'sweating the asset' then? Bonkers. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:57 - Apr 25 with 1055 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:31 - Apr 25 by Chief |
- all the members were bothered, extremely bothered. Unfortunately the new board in my opinion gave up any hope of a strong meaningful trust and didn't even consult the members. So yes it's difficult to care anymore but they're an irrelevance. You've advocated for them to be completely wound up in the past so don't pretend you really care.
-the current trust board made a deal fast enough so again nonsense and I understand why the sellouts did what they did. Everyone does. Doesn't mean they should have been allowed to do it though, or escape criticism. Another complete cop out to pretend it was down to the trust apparently taking time to make decisions. The sellouts were apparently negotiating with the Americans for nearly a year so to pretend there was no time to engage the trust is laughable.
- the trust chased away a buyer in 2017!? What are you on about? It was the Americans who made offers, altered them, then withdrew it in the space of a few days. That's the epitome of flakey and indecision.
- we'll take it up with the Americans/ sellouts. The trust tried to sort this year's ago but the claimants decided not to attend mediation and the hokey kokey bids. They extended the whole process, far longer than needed. Why would they want to get diluted? They were prevented from selling when the others did, they made their coin, they don't need protection. The trust are in this position due to the actions of others through no fault of their own. Nobody would want to lose percentages and have zero say in it.
- it's not investment yet. It's a loan. The trust asked for particulars at its inception and got nothing and now during the recent deal negotiations, they still wouldn't be drawn on when conversion may happen. What the fvck is the rest of that last paragraph!? Are you saying they've invested or not? First you say they have, then you say Kaplan won't invest much, then the owners are sweating the asset. Is loaning the club £10mill plus constitute 'sweating the asset' then? Bonkers. |
The court action was labelled the 'nuclear option' and the end of all meaningful relationships with the club. You supported this but it failed to get funding. Funding would have to come from selling shares or rinsing the members.
Neither of these options were viable.
The 2017 talks were reportedly chaotic. [Post edited 25 Apr 2022 19:57]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 20:05 - Apr 25 with 1049 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:57 - Apr 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The court action was labelled the 'nuclear option' and the end of all meaningful relationships with the club. You supported this but it failed to get funding. Funding would have to come from selling shares or rinsing the members.
Neither of these options were viable.
The 2017 talks were reportedly chaotic. [Post edited 25 Apr 2022 19:57]
|
- funding was secured. The new trust board thought it too risky to proceed without consulting it's members. Well the sale one would have been. No the trust are going to be potentially diluted anyway. The other option has never been mentioned as an option.
- Yes I'm not surprised with the Americans changing the terms of the bid then quickly withdrawing it. Sounds like the Americans were an indecisive shambles around that time. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:55 - Apr 25 with 1032 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 20:05 - Apr 25 by Chief |
- funding was secured. The new trust board thought it too risky to proceed without consulting it's members. Well the sale one would have been. No the trust are going to be potentially diluted anyway. The other option has never been mentioned as an option.
- Yes I'm not surprised with the Americans changing the terms of the bid then quickly withdrawing it. Sounds like the Americans were an indecisive shambles around that time. |
In a sale the seller has the fishing rod and the buyer is the fish to be caught. If the fish decides it is no longer hungry it will not bite. Another free analogy for you Chief. A fisherman that blames the fish is not much of a fisherman.
I try to give added value when I can. [Post edited 25 Apr 2022 21:56]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:10 - Apr 25 with 1023 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:55 - Apr 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
In a sale the seller has the fishing rod and the buyer is the fish to be caught. If the fish decides it is no longer hungry it will not bite. Another free analogy for you Chief. A fisherman that blames the fish is not much of a fisherman.
I try to give added value when I can. [Post edited 25 Apr 2022 21:56]
|
- Unfortunately the buyers (the fish) in this instance had already had their fill after gorging themselves on sellout shares and never really wanted trust shares.
- You can't force a fish to eat if it isn't hungry.
- you're obviously not trying hard enough then because there's zero value in this latest parable. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.