| The art of selling. Part 1. 12:15 - Nov 24 with 930 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Hello there. Peugout 206. 2011.
I know I said I would never sell it but I have changed my position. My preference to be honest is not to sell my car. I may be prepared to sell it though and I have informed people of this. My wife is not very happy about selling and the kids love the 206. Do not be surprised if we have a little domestic on the drive way when you flash the cash.
It will take some time for me to persuade them to be honest. (about a year). Subject to 4 months negiocation at least.
Apply within. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |  |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 14:39 - Nov 24 with 721 views | Treforys_Jack |
 |  | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 14:42 - Nov 24 with 716 views | Treforys_Jack |
Do your wife and kids own 20% of said car. | | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 15:00 - Nov 24 with 716 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 14:42 - Nov 24 by Treforys_Jack |
Do your wife and kids own 20% of said car. |
Was just going to post the same thing, ridiculous comparison. |  | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 15:52 - Nov 24 with 700 views | Catullus |
Comparing selling a football club with multiple shareholders to selling a clapped out old Peugot....ah, I get it.....erm, no, I don't. It's a tad more complicated. |  |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:02 - Nov 24 with 696 views | grabsplatter |
Clearly knows very little about cars either. |  | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:04 - Nov 24 with 691 views | Joe_bradshaw |
Shouldn’t have said you’d never sell.
Should have taken a leaf out of the Trust’s book and not said never like they did. |  |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:07 - Nov 24 with 688 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 15:52 - Nov 24 by Catullus |
Comparing selling a football club with multiple shareholders to selling a clapped out old Peugot....ah, I get it.....erm, no, I don't. It's a tad more complicated. |
This is not a direct comparision. It is a simple discussion on the art of selling. Selling is an extremely difficult skill. Made the wrong moves and the buyer will walk away. You, of course, can justify your failure to sell to a whole host of other variables such as the prevailling ecnomic conditions. Not selling is a lot easier than selling. Only te prospective buyer can say for sure why they walked away. Anyone else is guessing. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:27 - Nov 24 with 669 views | onehunglow |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:07 - Nov 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is not a direct comparision. It is a simple discussion on the art of selling. Selling is an extremely difficult skill. Made the wrong moves and the buyer will walk away. You, of course, can justify your failure to sell to a whole host of other variables such as the prevailling ecnomic conditions. Not selling is a lot easier than selling. Only te prospective buyer can say for sure why they walked away. Anyone else is guessing. |
It is. I spent my latter working years in Sales and it's a good career misunderstood by many.
No salesman is born | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:45 - Nov 24 with 650 views | vetchonian |
It seems that this subject is going to go on and on across several threads.
Lets put some perspective in here..
The Trust has never said it wouldnt sell, the sitaution of the sale from which the Trust were excluded arose as when the first set of buyers were found John Moore? after due dilligence the Trust did not feel these were "suitable" buyers..as a result the Trust were excluded from the negotiations which led to the eventual sale. As part of the process HJ who you keep defending tried to get the sharholders agreement annulled/changed even denying its existence and then was involved with falsifying board meeting minutes.
The Trust may have got some things wrong but the painting of the sell outs as whiter than white is a little way off the mark. | |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 17:13 - Nov 24 with 625 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:45 - Nov 24 by vetchonian |
It seems that this subject is going to go on and on across several threads.
Lets put some perspective in here..
The Trust has never said it wouldnt sell, the sitaution of the sale from which the Trust were excluded arose as when the first set of buyers were found John Moore? after due dilligence the Trust did not feel these were "suitable" buyers..as a result the Trust were excluded from the negotiations which led to the eventual sale. As part of the process HJ who you keep defending tried to get the sharholders agreement annulled/changed even denying its existence and then was involved with falsifying board meeting minutes.
The Trust may have got some things wrong but the painting of the sell outs as whiter than white is a little way off the mark. |
I did regretibly say in 2015 I would never sell my Peugot. My quote was widely reported and taken seriously by some. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 19:17 - Nov 24 with 569 views | BillyChong |
Thought you’d be driving something a bit flasher than a Peugout Leigh, what with all those dirty dollars. | | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 19:20 - Nov 24 with 566 views | BillyChong |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:45 - Nov 24 by vetchonian |
It seems that this subject is going to go on and on across several threads.
Lets put some perspective in here..
The Trust has never said it wouldnt sell, the sitaution of the sale from which the Trust were excluded arose as when the first set of buyers were found John Moore? after due dilligence the Trust did not feel these were "suitable" buyers..as a result the Trust were excluded from the negotiations which led to the eventual sale. As part of the process HJ who you keep defending tried to get the sharholders agreement annulled/changed even denying its existence and then was involved with falsifying board meeting minutes.
The Trust may have got some things wrong but the painting of the sell outs as whiter than white is a little way off the mark. |
The fact that the sellouts may be liable to payout from this court case suggests a lot from Reslovens inaccurate and inconsistent propaganda. | | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 19:32 - Nov 24 with 557 views | onehunglow |
LOOK.It's Peugeot. | |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 21:02 - Nov 24 with 529 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:07 - Nov 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is not a direct comparision. It is a simple discussion on the art of selling. Selling is an extremely difficult skill. Made the wrong moves and the buyer will walk away. You, of course, can justify your failure to sell to a whole host of other variables such as the prevailling ecnomic conditions. Not selling is a lot easier than selling. Only te prospective buyer can say for sure why they walked away. Anyone else is guessing. |
So yeah. Sell all means necessary because the trust, who have the clubs interest at heart may make things a bit more difficult.
You’re posting like someone who is trying to sell the family car for a bit of cash to fund the Xmas beers, before your Mrs (who is a named driver and who has shared the payments) finds out and wants to keep the car to take the kids to school. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 21:10]
| | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 22:39 - Nov 24 with 482 views | NotLoyal |
I've seen armalites being sold in car boot sales. They do indeed set your arm a light. |  |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 22:40 - Nov 24 with 482 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 21:02 - Nov 24 by 34dfgdf54 |
So yeah. Sell all means necessary because the trust, who have the clubs interest at heart may make things a bit more difficult.
You’re posting like someone who is trying to sell the family car for a bit of cash to fund the Xmas beers, before your Mrs (who is a named driver and who has shared the payments) finds out and wants to keep the car to take the kids to school. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 21:10]
|
On an unrelated matter. What makes you think the Trust have the Club's interests at heart.? From what I can see it is not a given.
There is a school of thought that the Trust would like to make the club the UKs biggest 'community club' competeing against Exeter city and until recently Wrexham. Stuart James of the Guardian loves this idea. He is not from Wales and does not really like football. He likes community involvement as a matter of principle. Look at the Trust s mission statement.
a) It does not includes Swansea playing at the highest level possible.
b) It does not say the club should have an academy and produce Welsh internationals
c) It does ot say it should generate wealth and bring in big star players
d) It does not say it should produce jobs for local people.
e) It does not say it should endeavour to expand the staduium.
f) It does not say to eventually sell he club and make a huge profit which will provide the Trust with eyewatering cash reserves.
This is the US owner's mission statement not the Trust's.
The Trust's mission statement is actually so unambitious it barely gets off the ground and is hugely risk averse and does not involve making money. To fullfill it's mission statement an easy life in league 2 or below would suffice like the mighty Exeter city owned and run by the fans for the fans. This is very appealing to some in south Wales. The 3000 fans pay £25 each per year and the £75,000 keeps the club viable. They sell a Watkins, Grimes and Ampadu each year for pennies to keep the cash tills turning. The £5m from those three was very useful. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 22:44]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 08:59 - Nov 25 with 389 views | vetchonian |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 22:40 - Nov 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
On an unrelated matter. What makes you think the Trust have the Club's interests at heart.? From what I can see it is not a given.
There is a school of thought that the Trust would like to make the club the UKs biggest 'community club' competeing against Exeter city and until recently Wrexham. Stuart James of the Guardian loves this idea. He is not from Wales and does not really like football. He likes community involvement as a matter of principle. Look at the Trust s mission statement.
a) It does not includes Swansea playing at the highest level possible.
b) It does not say the club should have an academy and produce Welsh internationals
c) It does ot say it should generate wealth and bring in big star players
d) It does not say it should produce jobs for local people.
e) It does not say it should endeavour to expand the staduium.
f) It does not say to eventually sell he club and make a huge profit which will provide the Trust with eyewatering cash reserves.
This is the US owner's mission statement not the Trust's.
The Trust's mission statement is actually so unambitious it barely gets off the ground and is hugely risk averse and does not involve making money. To fullfill it's mission statement an easy life in league 2 or below would suffice like the mighty Exeter city owned and run by the fans for the fans. This is very appealing to some in south Wales. The 3000 fans pay £25 each per year and the £75,000 keeps the club viable. They sell a Watkins, Grimes and Ampadu each year for pennies to keep the cash tills turning. The £5m from those three was very useful. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 22:44]
|
All those objectives listed which you say are missing from the Trusts mission statement why do you deem them as so important?
You really have missed the basis of all of this
The Trust was formed at a time when it appeared our football club much loved by many would dissapear run into the ground by the chancer Tony Petty. This came after a series of different ownership models which saw us always teetering on the brink of obscurity.
The consortium of local fans along with Mel Nurse led the takeover saving the club and putting it in the control of local ownership and fans who were much quoted at the time that this meant the club would never ever face this Petty type situation again......"for the fans by the fans".
As a result many believed and hoped our football club would remain in the hands of fans...OK the sellouts had the right to sell it was the manner in which it was done which hurts but four years on that is less for many especially as the club is still here and has not slid down the leagues as many feared, we are still competing toward the top of the Championship...whether we want promotion to the PL again as this was the cause of our downfall and the disruption of our previously successful model of running a football club
All those objectives result from circumstsances why should these be included in the mission statement of the Trust?
There was a huge price to pay for playing at the highest level ie the PL we were not big enough to sustain our existance due to the "costs" v income...you could say our board did not manage this properly
Lets discuss stadium expansion the stadium expansion did not happen because the previous board who you keep lauding decided not to go ahead....there are countless theories as to why lots around the choice of contractors .what good an extended stadium with no football club in existence which is the main aim of the Trust to keep a professional club alive in Swansea.
Personally im fed up with this arguement...four years on the club is still here we are still in the Championship in the hunt for promotion for the second succesive season . I do have concerns for the long term ,with us relying on loaned players, the run down of the acadamy to provide future players and the lack of clarity on our owners motivation and long term intentions. We cannot change what happened with the sale whichever way you look at it the process adopted by Huw Jenkins et al was underhand.
I am always annoyed that the board never sat with the the Trust and said "look the current model is unsustainable we either need to find more cash or we sell"
YOu keep banging on about the Trusts mission statement not dealing with making money
I ask if the managemnt of the club by those you keep lauding and defending was so great why couldnt they find ways of increasing our revenue? Our whole commercial approach during those years was a joke why wasnt a "professional" commercial manager hired rather than use a vending machine salesman?
There are opinions and arguements iin both sides....think of Mel Nurse without whom the sellouts would not have got the chance to make their millions and they profited from shares he gifted to the club which were allocated to shareholders as per a shareholders agreement which HJ said did not exist during the sale
The Trust are not blameless and got things wrong too we are all human but I fail to see how you keep "protecting" those who many saw as selling the club down the river.
Today for me there are more important things to worry about given the current state of life due to the pandemic....you keep banging on about money and that it what has killed this great game....I miss my simple Saturday afternoon as the game...I really miss those Vetch days but things move on and MOney has made killed this game ....the TV and PL monies and agents have ripped the true heart out of the elite level of the sport. When you look at the likes of Alan Curtis ,Bob Latchford, Jimmy RImmer who were "great" players at the top of the game they all ahd to find a career when they retired
Players like Gary Emmanuel who played in the old first division have to in their sixties wlak the streets in all weathers delivering mail to earn a living yet mediocre players will earn more in a week than some of these earned in a year due to the inflated wages now paid as a result of the "cash" slushing around and the greed of hangers on as owners seek to buy success to generate more profits!
For me the dmage is done the club is now in the hands of people with no emotional attachment....which sometimes can be a good thing ...any monies teh Trust may make from the legal action may never be enough to buy the club in the future but what is there to buy? We do not own the stadium yes we own the acadamy site at Landore but what is its worth? Our assets are Landore and players and the number of our "own" players is much reduced so what is the real net worth of the club?
I hope soon there is some resolution though I think this debate will last for generations
But for me I m fed up with it | |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 09:41 - Nov 25 with 383 views | Catullus |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 16:07 - Nov 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is not a direct comparision. It is a simple discussion on the art of selling. Selling is an extremely difficult skill. Made the wrong moves and the buyer will walk away. You, of course, can justify your failure to sell to a whole host of other variables such as the prevailling ecnomic conditions. Not selling is a lot easier than selling. Only te prospective buyer can say for sure why they walked away. Anyone else is guessing. |
If somebody wants to buy my car but I never get to meet them or speak to them then it's impossible to sell to them.
Again though, when you are talking about shares, about multiple ownership, it gets a lot more complicated and as we have seen, messy.
Why the Americans subsequently made an offer and then withdrew it, we agree, onlythey know. If I had a guess I would say they didn't want to spend money they didn't need to spend. | |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 09:55 - Nov 25 with 376 views | Treforys_Jack |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 08:59 - Nov 25 by vetchonian |
All those objectives listed which you say are missing from the Trusts mission statement why do you deem them as so important?
You really have missed the basis of all of this
The Trust was formed at a time when it appeared our football club much loved by many would dissapear run into the ground by the chancer Tony Petty. This came after a series of different ownership models which saw us always teetering on the brink of obscurity.
The consortium of local fans along with Mel Nurse led the takeover saving the club and putting it in the control of local ownership and fans who were much quoted at the time that this meant the club would never ever face this Petty type situation again......"for the fans by the fans".
As a result many believed and hoped our football club would remain in the hands of fans...OK the sellouts had the right to sell it was the manner in which it was done which hurts but four years on that is less for many especially as the club is still here and has not slid down the leagues as many feared, we are still competing toward the top of the Championship...whether we want promotion to the PL again as this was the cause of our downfall and the disruption of our previously successful model of running a football club
All those objectives result from circumstsances why should these be included in the mission statement of the Trust?
There was a huge price to pay for playing at the highest level ie the PL we were not big enough to sustain our existance due to the "costs" v income...you could say our board did not manage this properly
Lets discuss stadium expansion the stadium expansion did not happen because the previous board who you keep lauding decided not to go ahead....there are countless theories as to why lots around the choice of contractors .what good an extended stadium with no football club in existence which is the main aim of the Trust to keep a professional club alive in Swansea.
Personally im fed up with this arguement...four years on the club is still here we are still in the Championship in the hunt for promotion for the second succesive season . I do have concerns for the long term ,with us relying on loaned players, the run down of the acadamy to provide future players and the lack of clarity on our owners motivation and long term intentions. We cannot change what happened with the sale whichever way you look at it the process adopted by Huw Jenkins et al was underhand.
I am always annoyed that the board never sat with the the Trust and said "look the current model is unsustainable we either need to find more cash or we sell"
YOu keep banging on about the Trusts mission statement not dealing with making money
I ask if the managemnt of the club by those you keep lauding and defending was so great why couldnt they find ways of increasing our revenue? Our whole commercial approach during those years was a joke why wasnt a "professional" commercial manager hired rather than use a vending machine salesman?
There are opinions and arguements iin both sides....think of Mel Nurse without whom the sellouts would not have got the chance to make their millions and they profited from shares he gifted to the club which were allocated to shareholders as per a shareholders agreement which HJ said did not exist during the sale
The Trust are not blameless and got things wrong too we are all human but I fail to see how you keep "protecting" those who many saw as selling the club down the river.
Today for me there are more important things to worry about given the current state of life due to the pandemic....you keep banging on about money and that it what has killed this great game....I miss my simple Saturday afternoon as the game...I really miss those Vetch days but things move on and MOney has made killed this game ....the TV and PL monies and agents have ripped the true heart out of the elite level of the sport. When you look at the likes of Alan Curtis ,Bob Latchford, Jimmy RImmer who were "great" players at the top of the game they all ahd to find a career when they retired
Players like Gary Emmanuel who played in the old first division have to in their sixties wlak the streets in all weathers delivering mail to earn a living yet mediocre players will earn more in a week than some of these earned in a year due to the inflated wages now paid as a result of the "cash" slushing around and the greed of hangers on as owners seek to buy success to generate more profits!
For me the dmage is done the club is now in the hands of people with no emotional attachment....which sometimes can be a good thing ...any monies teh Trust may make from the legal action may never be enough to buy the club in the future but what is there to buy? We do not own the stadium yes we own the acadamy site at Landore but what is its worth? Our assets are Landore and players and the number of our "own" players is much reduced so what is the real net worth of the club?
I hope soon there is some resolution though I think this debate will last for generations
But for me I m fed up with it |
Quite simply up there with the best posts on this site ever. Suggest we no longer give this individual air time and no longer reply. Your post sums up what many of us feel. | | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 12:25 - Nov 25 with 342 views | BillyChong |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 22:40 - Nov 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
On an unrelated matter. What makes you think the Trust have the Club's interests at heart.? From what I can see it is not a given.
There is a school of thought that the Trust would like to make the club the UKs biggest 'community club' competeing against Exeter city and until recently Wrexham. Stuart James of the Guardian loves this idea. He is not from Wales and does not really like football. He likes community involvement as a matter of principle. Look at the Trust s mission statement.
a) It does not includes Swansea playing at the highest level possible.
b) It does not say the club should have an academy and produce Welsh internationals
c) It does ot say it should generate wealth and bring in big star players
d) It does not say it should produce jobs for local people.
e) It does not say it should endeavour to expand the staduium.
f) It does not say to eventually sell he club and make a huge profit which will provide the Trust with eyewatering cash reserves.
This is the US owner's mission statement not the Trust's.
The Trust's mission statement is actually so unambitious it barely gets off the ground and is hugely risk averse and does not involve making money. To fullfill it's mission statement an easy life in league 2 or below would suffice like the mighty Exeter city owned and run by the fans for the fans. This is very appealing to some in south Wales. The 3000 fans pay £25 each per year and the £75,000 keeps the club viable. They sell a Watkins, Grimes and Ampadu each year for pennies to keep the cash tills turning. The £5m from those three was very useful. [Post edited 24 Nov 2020 22:44]
|
The yanks have hardly shown willing to strive to achieve any of those aims you list.
A) we’ve been relegated from their highest level on their watch
B) they’ve downgraded the academy
C) they sold more star players than bought
D) they’ve made redundancies
E) they’ve given the rusty stadium metalwork a ‘lick of paint’, no sign of expansion whatsoever
F) to be fair, this may be the aim of the yanks but comes with no benefit to us | | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 12:27 - Nov 25 with 339 views | onehunglow |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 12:25 - Nov 25 by BillyChong |
The yanks have hardly shown willing to strive to achieve any of those aims you list.
A) we’ve been relegated from their highest level on their watch
B) they’ve downgraded the academy
C) they sold more star players than bought
D) they’ve made redundancies
E) they’ve given the rusty stadium metalwork a ‘lick of paint’, no sign of expansion whatsoever
F) to be fair, this may be the aim of the yanks but comes with no benefit to us |
It's why we need to be sold.It is all about to whom.adly,the Yanks sale has terrified us all.
There are good owners out there.Look at Leicester and Wolves,resurected from nowhere great.
Jenkins biggest shame is not selling us to people with financial clout and shame it is. | |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 12:43 - Nov 25 with 330 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 09:55 - Nov 25 by Treforys_Jack |
Quite simply up there with the best posts on this site ever. Suggest we no longer give this individual air time and no longer reply. Your post sums up what many of us feel. |
I suggest you engage in debate with logical replies .Burnley are discussing terms on a £200m sale to a foreign buyer. BURNLEY! Im not talking Spurs but Burnley. They have an utilitarian game style and an old style stadium in need of updating in a town smaller thanSwansea with many local rivals
I suggest you start thinking for yourself and stop running away looking for your mates to shut me up.
As far as we know the Trust are seeking 'unfair predudice' and suing for the 2016 price. £20m. They cannot afford the case themselves so will have to pay huge fees upto £8m possibly more leaving them with around £13m. Derby is worth £60m now bottom of the Championship.Let me help you Treforys. 21% of £60m is £12.6m. So the Turst are going t court for £400k? and losing the possiblitiy of being worth £42m.
No wonder you feel sick your representatives have a very dubious strategy that has been rendered economically invalid by inflation. The sale was four and a hlaf years ago. Even Chief thought the figures were credible.
If the Trusts ambitions are simply to preserve professional football in Swansea then this can be done in the league of Wales entering the Champions league every season. The Trust can do this by selling up and buying Llanelli Town . | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 13:20 - Nov 25 with 324 views | vetchonian |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 12:43 - Nov 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I suggest you engage in debate with logical replies .Burnley are discussing terms on a £200m sale to a foreign buyer. BURNLEY! Im not talking Spurs but Burnley. They have an utilitarian game style and an old style stadium in need of updating in a town smaller thanSwansea with many local rivals
I suggest you start thinking for yourself and stop running away looking for your mates to shut me up.
As far as we know the Trust are seeking 'unfair predudice' and suing for the 2016 price. £20m. They cannot afford the case themselves so will have to pay huge fees upto £8m possibly more leaving them with around £13m. Derby is worth £60m now bottom of the Championship.Let me help you Treforys. 21% of £60m is £12.6m. So the Turst are going t court for £400k? and losing the possiblitiy of being worth £42m.
No wonder you feel sick your representatives have a very dubious strategy that has been rendered economically invalid by inflation. The sale was four and a hlaf years ago. Even Chief thought the figures were credible.
If the Trusts ambitions are simply to preserve professional football in Swansea then this can be done in the league of Wales entering the Champions league every season. The Trust can do this by selling up and buying Llanelli Town . |
So if liitle ole Burnley can find such a buyer then why did the sellouts sell out so cheaply?
Your debating skills are pretty weak as they keep diverting off topic so as to hide the facts that your arguements are based on sand and have no substance
What does the Burnley sale have to do with the post I put up
I have already broken my promise to allow this debate to continue but really the utter rubbish you keep spouting
Lets ask a few questions about the sellouts
Why did Huw Jenkins pay himself the "market rate " for a football club chief executive when he had no relevant experience how much did he earn from that?
Why not employ someone more experienced when we got to the PL as things changed there and the previous model could no longer apply?
Where were the discussions with the Trust regarding the unsustainability of the ownership model unkless increased revenues allowing a more balanced cash flow without the need of director intervention or borrowing?
What do Burnley or Derby have to do with how the sale of the club was handled which is the basis of the case?
As I have posted elsewhere what if your wife and children went behind your back and sold your much loved 206 even though you own the biggest share and exclude you from any benefit of the proceeds?
Read the Trusts page in tonights programme their mission statement also discusses having an influence in the running of the club alongside other objectives.Why would SCFC supproters trust want to but Llanelli Town it is all about SCFC our club and a paarellel could be AFC Wimbledon but as yet our club has not been rebranded as Wimbledon were following thier move to Milton Keynes.
You fail to grasp why people are emotive about this all its not the fact that the sellouts sold out ( though it does grate ) but the sly underhanded way in which it did behind the back of the CLubs majority shareholder. | |
| |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 13:59 - Nov 25 with 315 views | Treforys_Jack |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 12:43 - Nov 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I suggest you engage in debate with logical replies .Burnley are discussing terms on a £200m sale to a foreign buyer. BURNLEY! Im not talking Spurs but Burnley. They have an utilitarian game style and an old style stadium in need of updating in a town smaller thanSwansea with many local rivals
I suggest you start thinking for yourself and stop running away looking for your mates to shut me up.
As far as we know the Trust are seeking 'unfair predudice' and suing for the 2016 price. £20m. They cannot afford the case themselves so will have to pay huge fees upto £8m possibly more leaving them with around £13m. Derby is worth £60m now bottom of the Championship.Let me help you Treforys. 21% of £60m is £12.6m. So the Turst are going t court for £400k? and losing the possiblitiy of being worth £42m.
No wonder you feel sick your representatives have a very dubious strategy that has been rendered economically invalid by inflation. The sale was four and a hlaf years ago. Even Chief thought the figures were credible.
If the Trusts ambitions are simply to preserve professional football in Swansea then this can be done in the league of Wales entering the Champions league every season. The Trust can do this by selling up and buying Llanelli Town . |
 | | | |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 14:02 - Nov 25 with 312 views | onehunglow |
| The art of selling. Part 1. on 13:20 - Nov 25 by vetchonian |
So if liitle ole Burnley can find such a buyer then why did the sellouts sell out so cheaply?
Your debating skills are pretty weak as they keep diverting off topic so as to hide the facts that your arguements are based on sand and have no substance
What does the Burnley sale have to do with the post I put up
I have already broken my promise to allow this debate to continue but really the utter rubbish you keep spouting
Lets ask a few questions about the sellouts
Why did Huw Jenkins pay himself the "market rate " for a football club chief executive when he had no relevant experience how much did he earn from that?
Why not employ someone more experienced when we got to the PL as things changed there and the previous model could no longer apply?
Where were the discussions with the Trust regarding the unsustainability of the ownership model unkless increased revenues allowing a more balanced cash flow without the need of director intervention or borrowing?
What do Burnley or Derby have to do with how the sale of the club was handled which is the basis of the case?
As I have posted elsewhere what if your wife and children went behind your back and sold your much loved 206 even though you own the biggest share and exclude you from any benefit of the proceeds?
Read the Trusts page in tonights programme their mission statement also discusses having an influence in the running of the club alongside other objectives.Why would SCFC supproters trust want to but Llanelli Town it is all about SCFC our club and a paarellel could be AFC Wimbledon but as yet our club has not been rebranded as Wimbledon were following thier move to Milton Keynes.
You fail to grasp why people are emotive about this all its not the fact that the sellouts sold out ( though it does grate ) but the sly underhanded way in which it did behind the back of the CLubs majority shareholder. |
Maybe emotion is best left out of logistics as to how we go forward.
Few would argue against Jenks being an abject clown and Dineen a simpleton who utterly failed our club's progress but revenge is not the way forward. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
