Please log in to use all the site's facilities
|Don’t you dare SK, JL, HJ|
at 17:44 11 Aug 2018
Fantastic result from a team that is playing their hearts out.
Look at the age of the starting 11 today. Only Olsson over 30. Two keepers 29. Rest of the team average age 22.
Bright manager and coaching team, full of energy and ideas. Adventurous but pragmatic as well. Obviously know how to spot a player.
Crowd really desperate to support them and willing them on.
We could build something really special here again.
Don’t you bloody dare let them down by failing to bring in the 4 players or so that could make all the difference.
at 14:34 16 Apr 2018
What an absolutely sickening episode in the life of this country the current issue with the so-called Windrush children is.
These people arrived here as kids, their parents answering a call for help, they've lived here for 50 years, worked, paid taxes and national insurance, brought up their own families, and are now being deported or threatened.
It is shameful.
|Gwilym Joseph - Very Sad News|
at 12:45 11 Aug 2017
Very sad to see the news of Gwilym's passing this morning.
I spent many afternoons in Gwilym's company watching the Swans over the years, and he was an absolute gentleman and I always greatly enjoyed his company. A very funny and entertaining man and by God he loved the Swans.
Rest in Peace Gwilym, and sincere condolences to his lovely wife and family.
|Because I'm Happy....|
at 20:43 19 May 2017
It's really only now beginning to hit me that I am going to enjoy every minute of this weekend's football.
Ive spent the entire season (well after the first week or so) dreading it.
10 points from 12, against Stoke, Man Utd away, Everton, Sunderland away.
What an achievement.
Take a bow every single player and member of the management team. You've given us all the perfect weekend.
at 19:47 11 Oct 2016
Interesting line up for the 23s tonight. For who is left out as much as who is in.
Who is Plezier who is playing (and has scored) for us? Anyone know of him? I don't recall hearing his name before.
|Gambling with our future?|
at 16:31 3 Oct 2016
Some on here have asked the question if today is the day that our club ended as we know it.
Extreme? Possibly, yes. But in 6 months or so, we have gone from a fan owned 'proper football club', rightly lauded for our ability to 'do things differently' to a club making decisions for reasons that have almost nothing to do with football.
Because this is the first managerial appointment that I can think of which has been made for purely commercial reasons. Not the sacking of Guidolin, deeply unsavoury though the treatment of a real gentleman has been. But the appointment of Bob Bradley in his place. A man with a footballing record that can at best be described as fair to middling, yet a man who is as close to a household name in the US as any football manager can possibly be. Someone who has never been considered for any other Premier League position, and as the current manager of a French Second Division team, would be pretty low down any list of candidates we would or should reasonably expect.
Make no mistake, this decision has been made for one reason and one reason only. To dramatically increase the profile of a small, unfashionable mid table Premier League team. Outside the giants of the British game, there will be no Premier League club that is now more spoken about in the US media than Swansea City. No club that will receive more analysis. No club that will attract the attention of more vaguely interested US sports fans. When the attention of the US sports channels turns each week to the Premier League, few results if any will be reported before the result of Bob Bradley FC. In depth articles will be written on the 'breakthrough' of the first American manager to take over a top level team. Commentators will discuss at length his selections, formations and which US players would be best suited to join the Swansea 'roster'.
And that enormous boost to our profile will lead, or so our new owners hope, to an equally enormous boost to our commercial potential. Companies that would have rightly asked 'who' when our name was mentioned, will suddenly find us interesting. And when they hear of the rags to riches backstory, conveniently laid out (with some artistic licence) in a ready made film, then we suddenly become a very interesting proposition indeed.
The problem with all this, of course, is that we have relegation in the Premier League. And, however interested the US becomes in us, that interest will vanish overnight if we find ourselves in the championship next season. It will also take a hell of a lot of extra commercial activity to replace £150m each season in TV money.
I guess we now know what the new owners meant when they talked about 'increasing our commercial activity' and 'achieving the next level'.
But it's a huge gamble - swapping a tried and tested European manager who most fans believe would have kept us up bringing in another £150m or so, and the chance to do it again next year, for a few extra minutes on Fox every weekend, some Twitter trends and possible new deals for stadium naming rights and front of shirt. Deals that will last until the final whistle of our game against West Brom next May if Bob Bradley finds the Premier League too much for him.
Tell us Jason - do you feel lucky?
at 12:54 1 Sep 2016
So, we are left with what we have at the moment and it's not all that pretty.
Thoughts turn to how we can compete this year, with what we have.
It seems to me we have a few glaring weaknesses, not least at the back, where we've looked incredibly shaky so far. Equally, we've looked toothless going forward, with a lack of creativity particularly from our wide players.
I was wondering if using this international break to try a new formation may be worthwhile.
Given the centre backs that we have, would it be worth trying a 'Wales type' formation where we have Amat and Mawson either side of VDH (as the tallest of the defenders) with FF as backup?
We could then play Kingsley and Naughton as wing backs (both being relatively quick and with at least some ability to cross the ball), have three in midfield that are less defensively focused (maybe Fer, Ki, Siggy, all rotating to some degree), and two of Baston, Llorente, Barrow, possibly Routledge up front.
It may not be the most attacking of formations, but at least shores us up. We could move to a 4 3 3 with Llorente, Baston and Barrow up front, bring Cork in for one of Fer or Ki, and go to 4 at the back as an alternative.
I am not certain it would work, but think it may be better than our current 4 2 3 1 set up, where we have a shaky defence and a big gap to the '1' up front when Gylfi is off form.
at 14:34 23 Jul 2016
Why on earth are we lining up at Bristol rovers with both Leon and Cork in the team? I mean, I assume we're not expecting a tight game where we'll be lucky to snatch a goal. Wouldn't this have been an opportunity to see someone else in midfield? Or is there genuinely no one in the 21s that can step in?
These friendlies are a bit of a waste if we don't switch some players around aren't they? Particularly as half the team is still missing.
at 14:23 9 May 2016
I know we have spoken on this board about this over the past few weeks, but I thought the new BBC documentary on this last night was superb. Incredibly moving.
If anyone has a spare two hours I would urge you to watch this on iplayer. Made me want to cry and throw things in equal measure. Such dignity on display it was humbling.
|The Purpose of the Trust|
at 15:49 12 Apr 2016
With apologies for starting yet another thread, but this doesn't really fit anywhere.
The time is surely right for asking 'what is the purpose of the Trust'?
Because I'm not sure I think it was ever 'to own shares in Swansea City FC' but believe instead it is 'to ensure the permanent existence of Swansea City FC' .
The distinction is in many ways an important one as it determines the available options in the current situation.
The discussions are being terribly distorted at the moment by the constant banging on about 25%. Well some actual facts. The ownership by the Trust of 25% of shares (or actually voting rights) does NOT stop the club from issuing more shares irrespective of what certain posters keep saying. In order to issue shares in a company, the company needs 50% plus 1 to agree to it (an ordinary resolution). The Trust is certainly not in a position to get to 50% plus 1 of the club. If the club gets an ordinary resolution of shareholders to issue shares it can do so. However, the articles of the club (and possibly the shareholders agreement reiterates this) means that when the club issues these new shares, all shareholders are entitled to take up their proportion of the new shares issued to retain their relative ownership %. So if new owners wanted to inject £20m into the club, the Trust would be entitled to buy shares for £4.2m to remain at 21%. This is called pre emption rights and means that the Trust would not be diluted.
In order to issue shares without pre emption rights, the club needs a special resolution, which is 75% plus 1 to vote in favour of it. At that point, the Trust would not have the ability to buy new shares issued and would be diluted.
In many ways though, this is moot, as the Trust wouldn't have the money to take up its rights anyway, so can't maintain its share irrespective of the shareholding it has at this point.
The ONLY change to this is if the shareholders agreement states something different ( eg that shareholders cannot be diluted in this way) which is probably not the case. So the Trust could never stop shares being issued even if it had 25%, it could only ensure they had the right to buy whenever they were issued.
There are certain other decisions which also require a special resolution - these include altering the articles of the club, reducing share capital and also anything else that is specifically stated either in the articles or a shareholders agreement (there may be certain things mentioned that require this that we are not aware of).
It is obviously the case that the new owners want the ability to pass special resolutions, so they are either concerned to make sure that the Trust cannot raise money and retain its percentage shareholding, or there is something else which is specified that they want to control (could be anything - unless we saw the articles or SA we can't guess what it may be).
In general though, new owners will want 75% as it gives them the ability to do anything they want.
So if it's accepted that the Trust will not be allowed to own enough to get to 25% with these potential owners, there are only a few things they can do.
They can hold onto shares as is, with a minority say and an acceptance that they could be outvoted on everything.
They can sell the shares and bank the money.
They can attempt as I mentioned on Sunday, to find different purchasers who may be more prepared to work alongside them.
This is where the question of what the Trust is for comes in. The Trust need to decide whether it may be better to cash out and retain the money for a rainy day or whether to stay in with these or others.
Some comments have been made that they can't cash out as no offer has been made for their shares. Well firstly, the shareholders agreement may give certain rights to insist on a sale at the same value as the others. It is rare that a minority shareholder can be left hanging in this way. However, even if the shareholders agreement is silent, there are certain actions that can be taken. One is an acknowledgement that there are minority protections in place - a minority shareholder cannot be diluted down to a reduced value of the shareholding - if the Trust were diluted and left with worthless shares, they could take action against the new owners to force a purchase of their shares at the proper value (I.e. £21m assuming £100m valuation now). But there are also provisions for a situation called a 'quasi partnership' which may well apply here. It covers a situation where people have entered into a business relationship with the intention of a partnership, collaborative business decisions, no one having control etc etc. but using a limited company to do it. Given the provisions that we understand of no one being able to get to more than 25% and so on at present, there may be a good chance of the court ruling that this past 10 years or so has been a quasi partnership. If that is the case, the Trust can force purchase of their shares at value.
If the Trust want to remain, then either these owners or others is the next question. It is perfectly possible that the Trust could find others who are willing to be more collaborative. We know there is other interest in the club - those people from last year for starters - they didn't buy Everton - are they still interested? There have also been rumours about Terry Matthews - has he been spoken to?
If there are no other more pleasant options, then it comes down to in or out with these people.
There are some benefits of staying in, but if the Trust just has a director who is ignored and a vote which is worthless, then all that really exists is that the Trust have invested £21m (by not cashing it in) in U.S. Investors that don't value them.
As a final unrelated point - the new Trust statement says that the books have been made available to the new people and yet the supporters director didn't know. How many directors are required for a board decision on that and why was the board decision not minuted and made available to all board members?
at 17:00 19 Feb 2016
There's a lovely little report from Moscowjack over on the scfc2 guestbook about seeing the team train today. Well worth a read for those who (like me) are nervous. Sounds like great team spirit and some intensive training going on.
Thanks Moscowjack - great to read something positive at the moment to settle our nerves a little bit.
|Darren Brown - Push|
at 15:04 20 Jan 2016
Did anyone see this programme?
Question for the police people on here. What is it that stops what the three did from being a prosecutable offence? Why can't they be done for attempted murder? After all, in their minds, they tried to kill someone on camera.
|Our Club Captain|
at 16:59 10 Dec 2015
In my view, questions need to be asked about the role that Ashley Williams has at the club and whether it is time for him to be replaced as club and team captain.
For a long time I've been concerned that he is not a leader of men - his head goes down quicker than almost anyone else in the team, and that is not what you want or need. In addition, his own form has been decidedly average and I'm not convinced he should remain undroppable.
But apart from all that, we are reading constant stories about players not being prepared to accept Monk's advice / tactics / being miffed that he wasn't effusive enough in celebrating their international achievements. We've also read about cliques, fallings out, even bust ups between players. And it's not for the first time that all of this is rearing its head.
So what exactly then is the club captain's role in all this? Doesn't he have a responsibility to sort out player feuds or issues, and get the squad together behind the manager, whoever that happens to be at any given time? Surely the captain is a mediator, a leader, a genuine link between the 'club' and the players?
I don't know who should be club captain or team captain, or whether they should be the same person, but I can't help feeling that we can and should be looking for someone to provide leadership in a crisis, and Williams seems yet again, to be unable or unwilling to do this.
at 15:06 23 Sep 2015
Seems to be a growing groundswell in the media today that Brendan is on his way out at Liverpool.
So where next for him if Ancelotti does take over?
|This is awful from the club|
at 17:52 18 Dec 2014
Today's Guardian publishes details of costs to young people of supporting their club, including ticket prices, replica kits and mascot prices.
To my absolute horror I see that we charge more for youngsters to be a mascot than any other premier league club (well, the same as QPR). This is an utter disgrace. £450 when clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea, both Manchester clubs and both Liverpool clubs charge nothing.
Surely with the income we have we don't need to be ripping off local kids (or their parents) like this? What about the Swans mad youngster whose parents can't afford it? How do they feel? Is there any provision for this if parents simply can't, understandably, pay that amount?
I realise that from time to time we probably have kids doing it for a special reason and they don't, presumably, pay (illness related and so on) but this is just terrible in an area where people are hardly rolling in spare cash.
I had no idea that we charged this sort of money - sometimes every player has a mascot and we're charging this for all of them? It's awful. Is this something that is widely known ?
at 14:51 25 Aug 2014
I notice that the under 21s are playing this afternoon at Ipswich and that we have Gallifuoco playing for us. Is that the same one that played for Spurs? Has he joined us then?
at 11:17 4 Jul 2014
I see that Mr Moralee is now telling anyone who'll listen that Taylor will 'only stay if Ben goes'.
Not quite true is it? He'll stay unless the club he's contracted to agree to sell him for a price they find acceptable!
He's having a bit of a mare this summer. He started off thinking that a whole load of offers were going to come in for Ash from 'big clubs' hence the demands that Ash was rumoured to have made re a new contract.
Those offers just haven't materialised though - all that there's been is a lowish £4m or so from Sunderland. Low enough for the Swans to say stuff it, we'll hold him to his contract and let him go for nothing next year if necessary. Certainly not the strong bargaining position that Moralee believed that they were in.
That has made him change his tune so that 'the club won't listen to any offer' - again, not really true is it? If we received an offer of say £7-8m from Arsenal (which I'm sure that Moralee expected) then we would have listened. But they haven't come in, so he tries now to save face by letting everyone know that the Swans are so desperate for Ash to stay at any price that all these other 'interested clubs' will just have to go elsewhere - they needn't even bother making an actual offer (just as well, since they didn't seem like they were going to anyway). Interesting that story came out on a day that it seems likely that QPR (every agent's fall back for over paying players) have decided on Caulker instead.
So now he turns to Taylor instead and starts a nonsense media story about him only staying if Ben goes and being a 'better player' than Ben if only he was given 'time in the team'.
He doesn't seem to be much good in judging the worth of his players and judging how genuine any interest in them may be. He's certainly getting his backside kicked by our Board this summer anyway.
at 19:05 26 Jun 2014
A couple of sites are beginning to rumour the transfer of Pablo Hernandez to Celta Vigo effective 1st July on a 4 year deal?
Would be a surprise unless there are behind the scenes issues ? Haven't seen a fee mentioned.
|Forum Votes: ||6399|
|Comment Votes: ||0|
|Prediction League: ||0|