| Coleman speaks on 10:55 - Dec 22 with 1413 views | shaggyrogers |
| Coleman speaks on 22:32 - Dec 21 by QJumpingJack |
have you listened to the audio?
Jase speaks the truth about 2015-16. Did he know it was going to end up on YouTube? |
Jase and truth in the same sentence just doesn't happen. He says whatever gets him out of trouble.
When agreement was made between the selling shareholders and the Americans a ' Heads of terms ' was drawn up. I am told there was a clause in it reference the trust and it certainly wasn't saying to exclude them. In fact quite the opposite. It is a shame the HOT hasn't been made public. |  | |  |
| Coleman speaks on 11:15 - Dec 22 with 1378 views | waynekerr55 |
| Coleman speaks on 10:55 - Dec 22 by shaggyrogers |
Jase and truth in the same sentence just doesn't happen. He says whatever gets him out of trouble.
When agreement was made between the selling shareholders and the Americans a ' Heads of terms ' was drawn up. I am told there was a clause in it reference the trust and it certainly wasn't saying to exclude them. In fact quite the opposite. It is a shame the HOT hasn't been made public. |
It would be great to see that, you're absolutely right |  |
| |
| Coleman speaks on 12:54 - Dec 22 with 1295 views | QJumpingJack |
| Coleman speaks on 10:49 - Dec 22 by union_jack |
You’d really have thought so wouldn’t you. |
surely they would have a spreadsheet.
Two tabs
a list of "managers in employment"
a list of "manager not in employment"
for managers in employment surely they would have "estimated" compensation with or without backroom staff.
One would hope the FD, Watson, Gude, Coleman and all the others could manage this surely. | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 13:22 - Dec 22 with 1264 views | Whiterockin |
| Coleman speaks on 12:54 - Dec 22 by QJumpingJack |
surely they would have a spreadsheet.
Two tabs
a list of "managers in employment"
a list of "manager not in employment"
for managers in employment surely they would have "estimated" compensation with or without backroom staff.
One would hope the FD, Watson, Gude, Coleman and all the others could manage this surely. |
This is how their spreadsheets work.
Two tabs
A list of managers we are interested in and available for a reasonable budget.
A list of managers we are interested in that will come for what we are prepared to pay.
I wonder which sheet is completely blank. Hence the reason we have not appointed anyone. |  | | |
| Coleman speaks on 13:33 - Dec 22 with 1246 views | QJumpingJack |
I wonder if the club are now regretting not holding onto Julian Winter. Least he had contacts within the game and was experienced. | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 13:56 - Dec 22 with 1225 views | Whiterockin |
| Coleman speaks on 13:33 - Dec 22 by QJumpingJack |
I wonder if the club are now regretting not holding onto Julian Winter. Least he had contacts within the game and was experienced. |
TBH I think they are arrogant enough (a trait with Yanks) to think they can do a better job. | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 14:15 - Dec 22 with 1205 views | union_jack |
| Coleman speaks on 13:56 - Dec 22 by Whiterockin |
TBH I think they are arrogant enough (a trait with Yanks) to think they can do a better job. |
And so do I. |  |
| |
| Coleman speaks on 14:57 - Dec 22 with 1154 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Coleman speaks on 10:55 - Dec 22 by shaggyrogers |
Jase and truth in the same sentence just doesn't happen. He says whatever gets him out of trouble.
When agreement was made between the selling shareholders and the Americans a ' Heads of terms ' was drawn up. I am told there was a clause in it reference the trust and it certainly wasn't saying to exclude them. In fact quite the opposite. It is a shame the HOT hasn't been made public. |
You wre told eh? Well who told you that and how did they know? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Coleman speaks on 15:03 - Dec 22 with 1124 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Coleman speaks on 08:09 - Dec 22 by majorraglan |
Kenwright held 25% of Everton’s before he made the decision to sell almost all his shares for tens of millions.
Mate of mine and his father owned 24% of a business (private limited company) they’d set up with another guy. The other guy stumped up most of the cash while they bought the knowledge and experience to the business. Said company was successful, making a decent profit and repaying the initial start up costs etc. At this point the majority share then closed the company down and put my mate and his father out of work. The majority owner reopened the business 2 or 3 days later, operating from the same place, using the old stock incorporating everything my mate had set up but using a slightly different name. Because they trusted the guy and were minority shareholders with less than 25% they had no protections and were ripped off. Check out the below link, it explains the law.
https://legalvision.co.uk/corporations/minority-shareholder-rights-uk/ |
Kenwright saw he way the wind was blowing and sold up his shares while he could it seems. He took actions to defend his assets and turned it into cash. The SCST have not sold any of their share and probably never will.
They are a organisation committed to decline by inflation and falling interest. They ask for your £10 to turn in int £5 in ten years and pay the banking and accountancy fees.
The Trust wanted to get to 25% for veto powers. Judging by their words they wanted to "protect" their percentage holding. It is part of their mandate. This includes investment. With 25% it is logical they would block new investment to preserve their 25%.
It only makes sense if the SCST want a club to revert to competing at a much lower level like Exeter city or the old Wrexham. A small club happy to exist and have big derby with exter city and Yeovil. Happily they have been put in a box and will be happy with 5% of the club and £1m in the bank doing nothing but devaluing. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Coleman speaks on 15:44 - Dec 22 with 1075 views | PawelAbbott |
| Coleman speaks on 10:41 - Dec 22 by QJumpingJack |
surely the club including our financial director would be aware of the overall costs attached to any manager we are targeting from the moment Duff left.
Why was it coming as a surprise on day 12?
It suggests a complete lack of planning by the executive team. |
Rooney is apparently on £1.6m a year.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/wayne-rooney-birmingham-city-salary
I can't see us even coming close to that, but we have to be budgeting around £750k and above to be realistic.
Someone mentioned the figure of £120k a year, the other day.
If that is the case then we really will be scraping the barrel for someone to come in | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 15:50 - Dec 22 with 1064 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
This figure was quoted about Steve Cooper and is not credible. It has been reported Swansea got compensation of £1.2m for Coopers final year from Nottingham Forest. I thought Cooper got a pay rise after his first season? | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Coleman speaks on 16:05 - Dec 22 with 1045 views | Whiterockin |
| Coleman speaks on 15:50 - Dec 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This figure was quoted about Steve Cooper and is not credible. It has been reported Swansea got compensation of £1.2m for Coopers final year from Nottingham Forest. I thought Cooper got a pay rise after his first season? |
Cooper and the Frank were the lowest paid in the Premier League last season on not much more than Rooney is now. | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 12:56 - Dec 23 with 916 views | QJumpingJack |
| Coleman speaks on 10:55 - Dec 22 by shaggyrogers |
Jase and truth in the same sentence just doesn't happen. He says whatever gets him out of trouble.
When agreement was made between the selling shareholders and the Americans a ' Heads of terms ' was drawn up. I am told there was a clause in it reference the trust and it certainly wasn't saying to exclude them. In fact quite the opposite. It is a shame the HOT hasn't been made public. |
one for the journalists, Gude and Coleman to investigate. | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 15:22 - Dec 23 with 863 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Coleman speaks on 12:56 - Dec 23 by QJumpingJack |
one for the journalists, Gude and Coleman to investigate. |
It is pretty irrelevant to most people. The reason they did not sell any of their shares was because the people running the SCST did not want to sell. They said this in 2015 and 2016.
How do I know this? Because they said so. If you tell people you do not want to sell or are reluctant sellers you will not get an offer because the buyers do not want to "waste their time".
By 2017 they eventually got their ducks in order and entered discussion to sell. Guess what? Some of the same people were involved and they could not make a deal. The sellers realised they were "wasting their time" and withdrew from talks that had already reportedly lasted 4 months.
Sales occur when there is a buyer and a seller. All other owners sold no problem at all. Only one owner did not sell. The problem of where the problem was regarding selling is pretty clear to me. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Coleman speaks on 15:59 - Dec 23 with 828 views | vetchonian |
| Coleman speaks on 15:22 - Dec 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is pretty irrelevant to most people. The reason they did not sell any of their shares was because the people running the SCST did not want to sell. They said this in 2015 and 2016.
How do I know this? Because they said so. If you tell people you do not want to sell or are reluctant sellers you will not get an offer because the buyers do not want to "waste their time".
By 2017 they eventually got their ducks in order and entered discussion to sell. Guess what? Some of the same people were involved and they could not make a deal. The sellers realised they were "wasting their time" and withdrew from talks that had already reportedly lasted 4 months.
Sales occur when there is a buyer and a seller. All other owners sold no problem at all. Only one owner did not sell. The problem of where the problem was regarding selling is pretty clear to me. |
Again you present the facts incorrectly....the Trust never said it would never sell.....
The sellouts kept the Trust in the dark over the successful sale as they as the majority shareholders scuppered the sale to the Moores lot after doing due diligence.
The Trust were tucked up .....and the latest guardians themselves sold out but we can't change things
We are where we are now.....there are faults with the current owners as all our previous owners had even those thT rescued us from the clutches of Petty but currently we have a solvent low debt club....what it lacks is some good football business management...oh for another Trevor Birch
Why 7 years on is this anyway relevant....
we are where we are. | |
| |
| Coleman speaks on 16:34 - Dec 23 with 786 views | swan_si |
| Coleman speaks on 15:59 - Dec 23 by vetchonian |
Again you present the facts incorrectly....the Trust never said it would never sell.....
The sellouts kept the Trust in the dark over the successful sale as they as the majority shareholders scuppered the sale to the Moores lot after doing due diligence.
The Trust were tucked up .....and the latest guardians themselves sold out but we can't change things
We are where we are now.....there are faults with the current owners as all our previous owners had even those thT rescued us from the clutches of Petty but currently we have a solvent low debt club....what it lacks is some good football business management...oh for another Trevor Birch
Why 7 years on is this anyway relevant....
we are where we are. |
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/37403185/swansea-city-see-united-stat
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/swansea-city-supporte
I think you'll find they did. |  | | |
| Coleman speaks on 17:50 - Dec 23 with 708 views | QJumpingJack |
out of date - the WalesOnline article was 2014. | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 18:08 - Dec 23 with 679 views | swan_si |
| Coleman speaks on 17:50 - Dec 23 by QJumpingJack |
out of date - the WalesOnline article was 2014. |
Date doesn't matter, it's about the Trust stating they would never sell their shares. | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 18:13 - Dec 23 with 670 views | Whiterockin |
It is relevant because it references the proposed sale to the first American interest that was also rejected by the majority shareholders. | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 18:16 - Dec 23 with 650 views | swan_si |
| Coleman speaks on 18:13 - Dec 23 by Whiterockin |
It is relevant because it references the proposed sale to the first American interest that was also rejected by the majority shareholders. |
how is it irrelevant when they said they would " never" sell? | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 18:36 - Dec 23 with 602 views | Whiterockin |
| Coleman speaks on 18:16 - Dec 23 by swan_si |
how is it irrelevant when they said they would " never" sell? |
Time to deal in facts not hearsay from fellow posters and articles that newspapers have incorrectly reported.
An official trust statement that anyone can see if they look on the trust website.
"I will say that at NO point has the Trust ever said that we will never, under any circumstances, sell our stake in the football club. It is fair to say that it is not our preferred option and goes against one of the stated aims of the Supporters Trust, which is to maintain a stake in the football club. It is also true to say that we recommended that we should not sell to Moores and Noell last year. However, all deals need to be judged on their individual merits."
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/news/trust-members-forum-address/ | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 18:52 - Dec 23 with 578 views | QJumpingJack |
| Coleman speaks on 18:36 - Dec 23 by Whiterockin |
Time to deal in facts not hearsay from fellow posters and articles that newspapers have incorrectly reported.
An official trust statement that anyone can see if they look on the trust website.
"I will say that at NO point has the Trust ever said that we will never, under any circumstances, sell our stake in the football club. It is fair to say that it is not our preferred option and goes against one of the stated aims of the Supporters Trust, which is to maintain a stake in the football club. It is also true to say that we recommended that we should not sell to Moores and Noell last year. However, all deals need to be judged on their individual merits."
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/news/trust-members-forum-address/ |
great post. | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 19:14 - Dec 23 with 532 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Coleman speaks on 18:36 - Dec 23 by Whiterockin |
Time to deal in facts not hearsay from fellow posters and articles that newspapers have incorrectly reported.
An official trust statement that anyone can see if they look on the trust website.
"I will say that at NO point has the Trust ever said that we will never, under any circumstances, sell our stake in the football club. It is fair to say that it is not our preferred option and goes against one of the stated aims of the Supporters Trust, which is to maintain a stake in the football club. It is also true to say that we recommended that we should not sell to Moores and Noell last year. However, all deals need to be judged on their individual merits."
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/news/trust-members-forum-address/ |
The comments in 2015 were well publicised and not contested by any member of the Trust. I read them at the time.
Read these words relating to selling.
"It is fair to say that it is not our preferred option and goes against one of the stated aims of the Supporters Trust, which is to maintain a stake in the football club".
Serious efforts to buy some of their shares failed after 4 months .
Imagine you want to sell your car.
"VW Golf 16,000 mile full MOT to Nov 2024. Test drive available. It is fair to say selling it is not my prefered option and my wife has not agreed either". Contact SCST.
Not very keen on selling is my conclusion. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Coleman speaks on 19:15 - Dec 23 with 531 views | swan_si |
| Coleman speaks on 18:36 - Dec 23 by Whiterockin |
Time to deal in facts not hearsay from fellow posters and articles that newspapers have incorrectly reported.
An official trust statement that anyone can see if they look on the trust website.
"I will say that at NO point has the Trust ever said that we will never, under any circumstances, sell our stake in the football club. It is fair to say that it is not our preferred option and goes against one of the stated aims of the Supporters Trust, which is to maintain a stake in the football club. It is also true to say that we recommended that we should not sell to Moores and Noell last year. However, all deals need to be judged on their individual merits."
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/news/trust-members-forum-address/ |
" under any circumstances " was never reported as far as I know. What was reported as quotations " trust shares are not for sale. They never will be"
So the trust moved the goal posts to the report by adding " under any circumstances "
Surely they should've had the articles corrected, after all it's more than likely that their readers wouldn't see the trust statement? | | | |
| Coleman speaks on 19:43 - Dec 23 with 478 views | Whiterockin |
| Coleman speaks on 19:15 - Dec 23 by swan_si |
" under any circumstances " was never reported as far as I know. What was reported as quotations " trust shares are not for sale. They never will be"
So the trust moved the goal posts to the report by adding " under any circumstances "
Surely they should've had the articles corrected, after all it's more than likely that their readers wouldn't see the trust statement? |
No goal posts moved, only by posters with an agenda. The facts are the facts, reported to members and those that actually matter in the correct way. If you and your twin missed it, it really doesn't change the facts. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
