| New loan? 10:41 - Apr 29 with 1683 views | Chief |
Another loan??? |  |
| |  |
| New loan? on 10:44 - Apr 29 with 1647 views | onehunglow |
My God |  |
| |
| New loan? on 12:13 - Apr 29 with 1620 views | 34dfgdf54 |
Maybe a transfer agreed for summer already and getting cash up front?
I have no idea how these things work mind so just a wild guess. |  | | |
| New loan? on 13:48 - Apr 29 with 1536 views | shaggyrogers |
Does anyone know how much it is for ? | | | |
| New loan? on 15:20 - Apr 29 with 1469 views | KeithHaynes |
These folk generally work with companies looking to open trade links and investment in Ireland and Luxembourg. The astute may be able to put some bones on it. |  |
| |
| New loan? on 13:13 - Apr 30 with 1204 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| New loan? on 15:20 - Apr 29 by KeithHaynes |
These folk generally work with companies looking to open trade links and investment in Ireland and Luxembourg. The astute may be able to put some bones on it. |
The Convetible loan note came from both Silverstein and the main ownership group headed by Kaplan. Silverstein might be the first one and this might be the matching Kaplan and co one.
Fans should be grateful for this loan to keep the club going. If it is indeed the fans should be very happy as the club will not have to pay it back and it reinforced the US committment to the club. By sinking more money into the club it makes it less likely they would let it go into adminstration.
Concerns about the dilution of the SCST are nothing to be concerned about. The SCST made no concern about the club interests in the long hot glorious summer days in the Premier league as they were more than happy with no cash in the bank. The way they have run their affairs up to now means they are very little use to the club. |  |
| |
| New loan? on 13:29 - Apr 30 with 1196 views | Chief |
| New loan? on 13:13 - Apr 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Convetible loan note came from both Silverstein and the main ownership group headed by Kaplan. Silverstein might be the first one and this might be the matching Kaplan and co one.
Fans should be grateful for this loan to keep the club going. If it is indeed the fans should be very happy as the club will not have to pay it back and it reinforced the US committment to the club. By sinking more money into the club it makes it less likely they would let it go into adminstration.
Concerns about the dilution of the SCST are nothing to be concerned about. The SCST made no concern about the club interests in the long hot glorious summer days in the Premier league as they were more than happy with no cash in the bank. The way they have run their affairs up to now means they are very little use to the club. |
Correct, dilution shouldn't be anything directly to worry about (for the trust anyway) for a few reasons.
1. This is currently just a loan, it is possible that it will never get converted.
2. There's the small case of upcoming legal action that could result in the trust selling their shareholding and therefore cannot be diluted.
Of course you still have not addressed why the club should take a loan or 5% interest when there were less costly alternatives available (if it indeed it actually transpires that such a cash injection was required at all).
Happy to help, but let's keep the thread on track to this particular loan. | |
| |
| New loan? on 14:53 - Apr 30 with 1174 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| New loan? on 13:29 - Apr 30 by Chief |
Correct, dilution shouldn't be anything directly to worry about (for the trust anyway) for a few reasons.
1. This is currently just a loan, it is possible that it will never get converted.
2. There's the small case of upcoming legal action that could result in the trust selling their shareholding and therefore cannot be diluted.
Of course you still have not addressed why the club should take a loan or 5% interest when there were less costly alternatives available (if it indeed it actually transpires that such a cash injection was required at all).
Happy to help, but let's keep the thread on track to this particular loan. |
I believe the court case will never happen. If the SCST want to leave the club with some cash they should discuss it with the other shareholders in a spirit of friendliness. It will not happen because it does not make financial sense. It only makes sense if Swansea was a failing club.
A legal case will earn the SCST £13-£14m. Derby was quoted at £60m. 21% of that is £12.6m so they ar not too far away from making a potential deal.
The loan is a CLN so it is the intention to convert it into shares. Silverstein is keen to invest.
You say there were less costly loans available. I very much doubt this is true for a struggling football team with no fans in a pandemic. THe EFL loan has probably also been taken but has strict limitiations. Burnley's owners took a 9% loan of the Dell corporation to buy the club. Burnely have a much stronger balance shaeet than Swansea as they are in the PL for at least one season more. | |
| |
| New loan? on 15:06 - Apr 30 with 1171 views | Chief |
| New loan? on 14:53 - Apr 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I believe the court case will never happen. If the SCST want to leave the club with some cash they should discuss it with the other shareholders in a spirit of friendliness. It will not happen because it does not make financial sense. It only makes sense if Swansea was a failing club.
A legal case will earn the SCST £13-£14m. Derby was quoted at £60m. 21% of that is £12.6m so they ar not too far away from making a potential deal.
The loan is a CLN so it is the intention to convert it into shares. Silverstein is keen to invest.
You say there were less costly loans available. I very much doubt this is true for a struggling football team with no fans in a pandemic. THe EFL loan has probably also been taken but has strict limitiations. Burnley's owners took a 9% loan of the Dell corporation to buy the club. Burnely have a much stronger balance shaeet than Swansea as they are in the PL for at least one season more. |
- Fair enough if you're that way inclined (even though its contrary to all evidence). The other shareholders are fully aware of the situation and have been for some time. Club may not be failing now but who knows what the future holds.
- What's Derby got to do with this? You say that figure as fact but you do not know that it is do you?
- We'll see, im just stating the current situation.
- there is no evidence to suggest the Swans have taken the EFL loan. Why do you think they have? I know you love Burnley, but yet again they are not relevant to this situation. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| New loan? on 16:10 - Apr 30 with 1157 views | jasper_T |
| New loan? on 15:06 - Apr 30 by Chief |
- Fair enough if you're that way inclined (even though its contrary to all evidence). The other shareholders are fully aware of the situation and have been for some time. Club may not be failing now but who knows what the future holds.
- What's Derby got to do with this? You say that figure as fact but you do not know that it is do you?
- We'll see, im just stating the current situation.
- there is no evidence to suggest the Swans have taken the EFL loan. Why do you think they have? I know you love Burnley, but yet again they are not relevant to this situation. |
The EFL loan is the accounts at ~580k iirc. Repayable by June 2024, 0% interest unless you're late with an instalment. | | | |
| New loan? on 17:21 - Apr 30 with 1129 views | Chief |
| New loan? on 16:10 - Apr 30 by jasper_T |
The EFL loan is the accounts at ~580k iirc. Repayable by June 2024, 0% interest unless you're late with an instalment. |
Ok 580k out of a possible loan of 8 million ish? | |
| |
| New loan? on 17:40 - Apr 30 with 1122 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| New loan? on 15:06 - Apr 30 by Chief |
- Fair enough if you're that way inclined (even though its contrary to all evidence). The other shareholders are fully aware of the situation and have been for some time. Club may not be failing now but who knows what the future holds.
- What's Derby got to do with this? You say that figure as fact but you do not know that it is do you?
- We'll see, im just stating the current situation.
- there is no evidence to suggest the Swans have taken the EFL loan. Why do you think they have? I know you love Burnley, but yet again they are not relevant to this situation. |
I live in a forest shed in the forests above Resolven and cannot give you cast in stone facts. Luckily I have wi fi and can do some research and quality thinking up here with the purifying smell on pine in my nostrils.
It seems to me Derby is a club comparible to Swansea but doing far less well. That august and relaible organistion, the BBC, quoted the first offer for Derby was £60m but this fell through. It is I suggest a reasonable ball park for Swansea city. £60m.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56194531
This means the SCST could put their shares up for sale today and expect to recieve £12.6m if they found a buyer. This figure will only increase and top prospects come out of the famed Swansea academy and Mr Cooper and Mr Scott do their magic . Assuming a 100% successful court case (very unlikely) they could only expect to see £13m or so, go into their bank.
I can fully understand you do not want the Burnely sale talked about. A low ranking struggling tam in a small unfashioable northern town with an over achieving football club. Swansea city know all about this. They were not sold for £100m, but £200m. 21% of £200m is £42m. (not £13m)
The actual chances of Swansea getting to Burnleys place is actualy pretty reasonable. More of the SCST members should visit the forests alone with the dog and do some thinking and leave all that Sunday school stuff talking about 'pieces of silver', 'asset strippers' 'hedge fund mosters', 'greed', 'failed roofer' stuff behind. The future is bright. | |
| |
| New loan? on 17:48 - Apr 30 with 1110 views | Chief |
| New loan? on 17:40 - Apr 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I live in a forest shed in the forests above Resolven and cannot give you cast in stone facts. Luckily I have wi fi and can do some research and quality thinking up here with the purifying smell on pine in my nostrils.
It seems to me Derby is a club comparible to Swansea but doing far less well. That august and relaible organistion, the BBC, quoted the first offer for Derby was £60m but this fell through. It is I suggest a reasonable ball park for Swansea city. £60m.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56194531
This means the SCST could put their shares up for sale today and expect to recieve £12.6m if they found a buyer. This figure will only increase and top prospects come out of the famed Swansea academy and Mr Cooper and Mr Scott do their magic . Assuming a 100% successful court case (very unlikely) they could only expect to see £13m or so, go into their bank.
I can fully understand you do not want the Burnely sale talked about. A low ranking struggling tam in a small unfashioable northern town with an over achieving football club. Swansea city know all about this. They were not sold for £100m, but £200m. 21% of £200m is £42m. (not £13m)
The actual chances of Swansea getting to Burnleys place is actualy pretty reasonable. More of the SCST members should visit the forests alone with the dog and do some thinking and leave all that Sunday school stuff talking about 'pieces of silver', 'asset strippers' 'hedge fund mosters', 'greed', 'failed roofer' stuff behind. The future is bright. |
Right so Derby a championship club with financial difficulties aren't relevant because the trust aren't going to sell their shares at the championship price are they?
The rest is waffle. | |
| |
| New loan? on 20:16 - Apr 30 with 1048 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| New loan? on 17:48 - Apr 30 by Chief |
Right so Derby a championship club with financial difficulties aren't relevant because the trust aren't going to sell their shares at the championship price are they?
The rest is waffle. |
It is entirely reasonable for the SCST to sell their shares in the Championship without a court case and recieve the same money as a result. The SCST should have demanded to be involved in the sale in march 2016 but had no mandate. This was due to their own democratic deficit. With buyers circulating in February 2015 they decided not to ask their members of their view should a new bid come in. The "not for sale" sign was up in line with the brief to increase not decrease their holding.
It is not waffle it is a coherient argument. I am willing to be the devil advocate to test out argument to see if the carry water. You discount the argument claiming the Derby price is inadmissible evidence. Objection over ruled.
Derby County strugglling in the Champoinship was valued at £60m in February as determied by the BBC . It is reasonable to assume Swansea is valued at a similar ball park figure.
If Swansea is worth £60m then 21% of that is £12.6m. less than the £21m admittedly.
If SCST win in Court (the best outcome) they will recieve the £21m minus the huge funders costs of perhaps close to 40% . 60% of £21m is ...... 21x 0.6 = £12,6m in the Championship.
With football inflation quite high even it it is less than £60m it will only take 5 years or so to reach that level.
Going to court makes no sense given the huge potential upside. Swansea is not like Derby or Bournemouth or Stoke with £100m+ debts to pay back or write off. The QC said clearly going to court was a "last resort". The last resort is when Swansea at at the bottom of league 2. It is clearly not the case. SCFC could be in the PL by the end of next month. | |
| |
| New loan? on 21:43 - Apr 30 with 1029 views | Chief |
| New loan? on 20:16 - Apr 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is entirely reasonable for the SCST to sell their shares in the Championship without a court case and recieve the same money as a result. The SCST should have demanded to be involved in the sale in march 2016 but had no mandate. This was due to their own democratic deficit. With buyers circulating in February 2015 they decided not to ask their members of their view should a new bid come in. The "not for sale" sign was up in line with the brief to increase not decrease their holding.
It is not waffle it is a coherient argument. I am willing to be the devil advocate to test out argument to see if the carry water. You discount the argument claiming the Derby price is inadmissible evidence. Objection over ruled.
Derby County strugglling in the Champoinship was valued at £60m in February as determied by the BBC . It is reasonable to assume Swansea is valued at a similar ball park figure.
If Swansea is worth £60m then 21% of that is £12.6m. less than the £21m admittedly.
If SCST win in Court (the best outcome) they will recieve the £21m minus the huge funders costs of perhaps close to 40% . 60% of £21m is ...... 21x 0.6 = £12,6m in the Championship.
With football inflation quite high even it it is less than £60m it will only take 5 years or so to reach that level.
Going to court makes no sense given the huge potential upside. Swansea is not like Derby or Bournemouth or Stoke with £100m+ debts to pay back or write off. The QC said clearly going to court was a "last resort". The last resort is when Swansea at at the bottom of league 2. It is clearly not the case. SCFC could be in the PL by the end of next month. |
- its not reasonable though is it? This issue has been ongoing for years now, its no secret. It is easy for any prospective buyers to see what's going on. There aren't any takers for 21% stake of a championship club. How could the trust have demanded to be a part of the sale? You'd need a willing buyer for that to happen. The Americans were obviously happy with just their 69%.
- luckily you aren't a judge, so i shall continue to label waffle as waffle.
- Yes Derby again. Doesn't mean buyers are going to suddenly start queuing up to buy the trust's 21%.
- the rest is your same pessimistic figures you always peddle. But they're useless due to the practicalities. They can't sell without anyone willing to buy.
- Please don't act ignorant on what the QC said AGAIN. Come on Resolven you've tried that before and it didn't work. You know exactly what the QC said. | |
| |
| New loan? on 11:22 - May 1 with 953 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| New loan? on 21:43 - Apr 30 by Chief |
- its not reasonable though is it? This issue has been ongoing for years now, its no secret. It is easy for any prospective buyers to see what's going on. There aren't any takers for 21% stake of a championship club. How could the trust have demanded to be a part of the sale? You'd need a willing buyer for that to happen. The Americans were obviously happy with just their 69%.
- luckily you aren't a judge, so i shall continue to label waffle as waffle.
- Yes Derby again. Doesn't mean buyers are going to suddenly start queuing up to buy the trust's 21%.
- the rest is your same pessimistic figures you always peddle. But they're useless due to the practicalities. They can't sell without anyone willing to buy.
- Please don't act ignorant on what the QC said AGAIN. Come on Resolven you've tried that before and it didn't work. You know exactly what the QC said. |
The SCST cannot sell because they cannot cut a deal. You cannot complain about there being no one to buy their shares after the other shareholders put cash rich US buyers in front of the SCST not once but twice. 2015 and 2016. The US people have also introduced them to another interested investor Jake Silverstein.
There are three possible valuations
2016 value £21m
2021 value £12.6m
2021 Court case value £21m - 40% agents fees. = £12.6m.
Conclusion. SCST members are working for the agents to get their 40% cut. Shameful. Would you sell you house and accept a 40% conveyancing fee? I paid 1.5%.
The SCST gain nothing by going to court and lose a lot of potential upside that at least Jake can see. Sound like a great guy and he believes in the club. | |
| |
| New loan? on 11:57 - May 1 with 945 views | Chief |
| New loan? on 11:22 - May 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The SCST cannot sell because they cannot cut a deal. You cannot complain about there being no one to buy their shares after the other shareholders put cash rich US buyers in front of the SCST not once but twice. 2015 and 2016. The US people have also introduced them to another interested investor Jake Silverstein.
There are three possible valuations
2016 value £21m
2021 value £12.6m
2021 Court case value £21m - 40% agents fees. = £12.6m.
Conclusion. SCST members are working for the agents to get their 40% cut. Shameful. Would you sell you house and accept a 40% conveyancing fee? I paid 1.5%.
The SCST gain nothing by going to court and lose a lot of potential upside that at least Jake can see. Sound like a great guy and he believes in the club. |
- Cash rich buyers who obviously didn't have the intention of buying the trust's shares or they would have just bid for them at the same time as the other shareholders shares. And the same cash rich investors who are seemingly prepared to let the case go to court rather than paying the going rate. Silverstein knows the situation and has done since he arrived. He's shown no inclination to buy anyone's shares. Its pretty obvious to everyone else that the Americans don't and never wanted to buy out the trust.
- You're making up domesday assumptions again on the costs but of course the trust gain in the event of a win. Even after fees its a gigantic profit on their initial outlay, and crucially a buyer, which is what's been lacking.
- You're also forgetting that it's not only the Americans being summoned. Could there be damages from another source too? Have you considered that? | |
| |
| New loan? on 12:18 - May 1 with 941 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| New loan? on 11:57 - May 1 by Chief |
- Cash rich buyers who obviously didn't have the intention of buying the trust's shares or they would have just bid for them at the same time as the other shareholders shares. And the same cash rich investors who are seemingly prepared to let the case go to court rather than paying the going rate. Silverstein knows the situation and has done since he arrived. He's shown no inclination to buy anyone's shares. Its pretty obvious to everyone else that the Americans don't and never wanted to buy out the trust.
- You're making up domesday assumptions again on the costs but of course the trust gain in the event of a win. Even after fees its a gigantic profit on their initial outlay, and crucially a buyer, which is what's been lacking.
- You're also forgetting that it's not only the Americans being summoned. Could there be damages from another source too? Have you considered that? |
Giving grief to local business interests is the doomsday sceanrio and local business community will not forget it. The SCST will be making themselves obsolete in my opinion. The US people did bid for them in 2016 at least and entered 4 months of talks.
The SCST seem to me to be are lazy and do not not understand that if you want to sell something you have to do some work like advertising and networking. Using skills and charm.
They should know this. The other shareholder have introduced them to Moores and Co, Kaplan and Co, and Silverstein all of whom have considerable "next level " cash reserves. The rest is up to them. | |
| |
| New loan? on 12:31 - May 1 with 939 views | Chief |
| New loan? on 12:18 - May 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Giving grief to local business interests is the doomsday sceanrio and local business community will not forget it. The SCST will be making themselves obsolete in my opinion. The US people did bid for them in 2016 at least and entered 4 months of talks.
The SCST seem to me to be are lazy and do not not understand that if you want to sell something you have to do some work like advertising and networking. Using skills and charm.
They should know this. The other shareholder have introduced them to Moores and Co, Kaplan and Co, and Silverstein all of whom have considerable "next level " cash reserves. The rest is up to them. |
- the local business community? What are you waffling on about now!? Ah i thought they were already an irrelevance? You really trying everything to slander them aren't you. It's debatable what offer the Americans made.
- how can preparing for a legal case for this amount of time and all the negotiations be classed as 'lazy'. Yet another random unwarranted slur. Network with who exactly? They are a supporters trust of a moderately sized football club in South Wales. It's hardly the hardly the breeding ground for potential tycoons is it. As usual you're being completely unrealistic.
- You do an amazing impression of someone who really just cares about the American owners of the football club a lot more than the football club itself fair play. They're a supporters trust. They aren't going to schmooze anyone they feel like they will harm the club which is obviously the conclusion they came to with the first set. The sellouts naturally had a longer reach with Katzen / JVZ etc
- i notice you swerved my other point entirely. Out of sight out of mind on that one is it? | |
| |
| New loan? on 13:20 - May 1 with 929 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| New loan? on 12:31 - May 1 by Chief |
- the local business community? What are you waffling on about now!? Ah i thought they were already an irrelevance? You really trying everything to slander them aren't you. It's debatable what offer the Americans made.
- how can preparing for a legal case for this amount of time and all the negotiations be classed as 'lazy'. Yet another random unwarranted slur. Network with who exactly? They are a supporters trust of a moderately sized football club in South Wales. It's hardly the hardly the breeding ground for potential tycoons is it. As usual you're being completely unrealistic.
- You do an amazing impression of someone who really just cares about the American owners of the football club a lot more than the football club itself fair play. They're a supporters trust. They aren't going to schmooze anyone they feel like they will harm the club which is obviously the conclusion they came to with the first set. The sellouts naturally had a longer reach with Katzen / JVZ etc
- i notice you swerved my other point entirely. Out of sight out of mind on that one is it? |
More bluff and bluster. Do I have to explain to you about the importance of the local ​business community in creating jobs?.
​
​The US offer is not debateable as it was reported to be the same terms as the other sellers according to the prospective buyer. The leaders of the seller did not find the terms acceptable.
The terms were deemed acceptable later but that was with hindsight and relegation. Thats life. It might prove to be a good decision | |
| |
| New loan? on 13:46 - May 1 with 917 views | Chief |
| New loan? on 13:20 - May 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
More bluff and bluster. Do I have to explain to you about the importance of the local ​business community in creating jobs?.
​
​The US offer is not debateable as it was reported to be the same terms as the other sellers according to the prospective buyer. The leaders of the seller did not find the terms acceptable.
The terms were deemed acceptable later but that was with hindsight and relegation. Thats life. It might prove to be a good decision |
- Yes i guessed you deviating from the topic into random sidebars was bluff and bluster.
- REPORTED as being bid for HALF of the shares wasn't it? | |
| |
| New loan? on 15:01 - May 1 with 890 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| New loan? on 13:46 - May 1 by Chief |
- Yes i guessed you deviating from the topic into random sidebars was bluff and bluster.
- REPORTED as being bid for HALF of the shares wasn't it? |
Press reports said half the shares. It was a good offer I believe they should have agreed on quickly.
In this case they would be in an ideal posittion of £6m in the bank (or for investment) a 15% holding and another £5m to come on the return to the PL with 10% for further growth. | |
| |
| New loan? on 17:22 - May 1 with 859 views | Chief |
| New loan? on 15:01 - May 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Press reports said half the shares. It was a good offer I believe they should have agreed on quickly.
In this case they would be in an ideal posittion of £6m in the bank (or for investment) a 15% holding and another £5m to come on the return to the PL with 10% for further growth. |
Ah well the trust didn't appreciate the terms and its them that matter, not a guy living in the woods in the Neath valley. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
