By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Tifo football podcast - Swans on 16:41 - Oct 13 by Chief
Bit of a strange outburst that.
Two financial lightweights with a strong Trust sympathies. Commitees of honest working people in a 'not for profit' organisation are always good for Guardian journos. The so called maligned Trust were bequeathed a x100 mark up on their shares much of it donated but failed to deliver the rewards as selling was "not their preference".
Wise sage since Toshack era
0
Tifo football podcast - Swans on 07:14 - Oct 14 with 347 views
Tifo football podcast - Swans on 23:34 - Oct 13 by ReslovenSwan1
Two financial lightweights with a strong Trust sympathies. Commitees of honest working people in a 'not for profit' organisation are always good for Guardian journos. The so called maligned Trust were bequeathed a x100 mark up on their shares much of it donated but failed to deliver the rewards as selling was "not their preference".
Bad why wouldn't journalists&any other balanced person have sympathies? They grasp the concept (one which you are seemingly incapable of doing or unwilling to maybe) of a supporters trust. It isn't to act as an investment money making vehicle or as a hedgefund (in any normal time where no malpractice has taken place). So once again & I'm repeating myself - correct why in the past would the trust have 1) wanted to sell? No one could have predicted the sell outs would have acted the way they did remember. And 2 - to whom? the last Americans weren't suitable and this lot were able to take full control of the club without having to pay for it all.
Look at the reality of the situation - not your one track tunnel vision that is missing the point entirely.
Tifo football podcast - Swans on 07:14 - Oct 14 by Chief
Bad why wouldn't journalists&any other balanced person have sympathies? They grasp the concept (one which you are seemingly incapable of doing or unwilling to maybe) of a supporters trust. It isn't to act as an investment money making vehicle or as a hedgefund (in any normal time where no malpractice has taken place). So once again & I'm repeating myself - correct why in the past would the trust have 1) wanted to sell? No one could have predicted the sell outs would have acted the way they did remember. And 2 - to whom? the last Americans weren't suitable and this lot were able to take full control of the club without having to pay for it all.
Look at the reality of the situation - not your one track tunnel vision that is missing the point entirely.
a) The Trust needs cash in the back to fullfill it role of protecting professional football in the city of Swansea. Without cash they have no influence or clout. This is now the case. b) When the Trusts holding was rated at x100 investment it was very poor management not to sell at least some of their holding. Selling is achieved by putting yourself up for sale. The Trusts discussions with a buyer in 2017 was shambolic. c) The selling by the sellers was entirely predicable with their gains at x100. With their own money at stake selling was a 'no brainer' for them. The Trust needed to understand this. d) Seller abounded in 2016 and were available and offers were made for the Trust's holding. e) If the US owners want to sell it would be much easier for them to sell without troublesome minority shareholders. A new buyer would want a 100% holding realistically. f) The current US owners are perfectly good managers of the club. Relegation has occured but that is sport. The Trust is looking for an unsitable unsustainable sugar daddy owner like Mr Tan. g) The Trust has no vision and is parochail. It should have a 5% holding and be prepared to invest in the club with hard cash while keeping a substantial cash holding invested on the markets. It has no expertise in football management. h) The Trust should have a friendly and open relationship with the key stakeholders. Threatening legal action is highly negative and they cannot afford it. If they win they will harm the club costing local jobs and pay an arm and a leg to ambulance chasers.
Wise sage since Toshack era
0
Tifo football podcast - Swans on 12:44 - Oct 14 with 307 views
Tifo football podcast - Swans on 12:17 - Oct 14 by ReslovenSwan1
a) The Trust needs cash in the back to fullfill it role of protecting professional football in the city of Swansea. Without cash they have no influence or clout. This is now the case. b) When the Trusts holding was rated at x100 investment it was very poor management not to sell at least some of their holding. Selling is achieved by putting yourself up for sale. The Trusts discussions with a buyer in 2017 was shambolic. c) The selling by the sellers was entirely predicable with their gains at x100. With their own money at stake selling was a 'no brainer' for them. The Trust needed to understand this. d) Seller abounded in 2016 and were available and offers were made for the Trust's holding. e) If the US owners want to sell it would be much easier for them to sell without troublesome minority shareholders. A new buyer would want a 100% holding realistically. f) The current US owners are perfectly good managers of the club. Relegation has occured but that is sport. The Trust is looking for an unsitable unsustainable sugar daddy owner like Mr Tan. g) The Trust has no vision and is parochail. It should have a 5% holding and be prepared to invest in the club with hard cash while keeping a substantial cash holding invested on the markets. It has no expertise in football management. h) The Trust should have a friendly and open relationship with the key stakeholders. Threatening legal action is highly negative and they cannot afford it. If they win they will harm the club costing local jobs and pay an arm and a leg to ambulance chasers.
a) Yes correct - this may NOW be the case (via deception of course). It wasn't in the past when you're saying they should have sold shares&embarked on a wall street power trip. b) you keep saying that but as above, there was no need to do so nor obvious buyers. c) No one begrudges the sell outs selling. Its how they did it and to whom which is the issue. d) a seller who didn't even buy from the majority share holders so why would they buy the shares minority holding? Plus they were deemed not suitable. e) ok. f) Debatable - could be worse but they have obvious drawbacks. That sugar daddy thing - where have you had that from? Isn't what Tans done the same as Silverstein anyway? Shady 'equitable Loan's'? g) 5%- again pie in the sky - how would they get to that percentage for how much and by whom? You're correct they have no expertise in that field, but yet again, as you know that is not their aim. You could argue the Americans don't either. Their record at D.C. is poor&they hire people who do like Birch. Early days for Winter but the early signs aren't good. I'll reiterate yet again (and you know this but your clutching at every straw you can) -they are not an investment vehicle to put funds into the football clubs accounts. None of the previous owners were either. Should Huw Jenkins put some money in as a shareholder then? h) yet another blinkered and ignorant point because you are fully aware that the trust have tried their very best over the course of some very frustrating years to try&the Americans engaged. The Americans have had ample opportunity to talk but they've dilllied, dallied, bluffed&ignored. From the very start the Americans have been poor communicators (it did improve under Birch). Right now one of the largest shareholders has resigned as a director and we have no idea why! "No comment". The Americans may choose to harm the club if they lose the case; I can't predict that. I assume that wouldn't help their investment though &if they do the trust were spot on in the action. Even more scaremongering conjecture in the last sentence there too.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
