| Swans shareholder interview on 13:04 - Dec 26 with 1446 views | onehunglow |
| Swans shareholder interview on 00:08 - Dec 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The US investor (who is probably a lot well off than we imagine) may have invested in a hedge fund. You and most of us cannot invest in hedge funds as it is for experienced and (or at least) well resourced people.
Hedge funds are controversial because they have no FCA (UK body) protection. It is for high risk operators. No FCA registered adviser would recommend a football club shares in UK. If they did they would be de-registered. No one cries for these people when they lose big. To invest in football teams you must go to investment methods outside the mainstream.
The Trust are not wailing at their monumental loses as no individual has got hurt. This is why it was run so badly and no one is blamed for it. No one really cares. This is why it is no good. It is a place for a chat.
Hedge funds differ from other funds in that the "principals" are also highly invested in the project. If you lose they lose. Some UK FCA advisers like pension advisors are pad a % rate. If you lose, they do not, they just win less. In hedge funds the owners lose more than you do as an investor.
The US guy will still make big profits if Swansea get back to the Premier league due to football inflation in TV rights season tickets stadium expansion, player trading etc. You do not need to feel sorry for these guys. They will be real happy if Swansea go back up and will close on double their investment. |
Valley of the shadow of death |  |
|  |
| Swans shareholder interview on 13:55 - Dec 26 with 1400 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Swans shareholder interview on 12:49 - Dec 26 by QJumpingJack |
Please keep to the topic of the original post.
The Trust has nothing to do with this interview.
Thank you. |
This 100% plus, some things we know or at least can be qute sure of.
1, We are not heading towards the Premier league, we are heading the other way.
2, There will be no stadium expansion, even if we got promoted. That's because it would cost upwards of 15 million and they won't spend it. They'd probably take what they could in the first season (if we looked like staying up) then sell us in the second, if they could.
3, The trust (sorry to go off topic) wanted to increase their shareholding so they couldn't be forced to sell up AND had a bigger say in the club.
4, this bloke, this fool is (I suppose) entitled to his opinion but even so, he can get lost. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 13:58 - Dec 26 with 1391 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 13:04 - Dec 26 by onehunglow |
Valley of the shadow of death |
NPT - Michael Sheen, Richard Burton, Katherine Jenkins, Max Boyce, Sian Phillips, Ivor Emmanuel, Huw Jenkins OBE great st ever Chairman not to mention Connor Roberts and Ben Davies. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:59 - Dec 26 with 1341 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 13:55 - Dec 26 by SullutaCreturned |
This 100% plus, some things we know or at least can be qute sure of.
1, We are not heading towards the Premier league, we are heading the other way.
2, There will be no stadium expansion, even if we got promoted. That's because it would cost upwards of 15 million and they won't spend it. They'd probably take what they could in the first season (if we looked like staying up) then sell us in the second, if they could.
3, The trust (sorry to go off topic) wanted to increase their shareholding so they couldn't be forced to sell up AND had a bigger say in the club.
4, this bloke, this fool is (I suppose) entitled to his opinion but even so, he can get lost. |
Except the logic of getting to 25% was bunkum. It always was. The only strategy should have a lump sum. They could never have had both. Other shareholders would not allow them to have 25% unless they have big funds to invest.
For one thing they were £4,000,000 short with only £880k in the bank. The Trust strategy included asking the US people for a £4m worth of shares handout. (a gift).
Once they had 25% they would most probably be able to veto things. The first thing they would VETO is NEW INVESTMENT.
At 25% they would need to provide 25% of new investment. £2.5m out of every £10m invested. They did not have it. The first £4m on new investment would clean out the Trust of all their cash seeing them drop to below 25% again.
The SCST blew the chance of a lump sum in 2015 -2016. They wanted 25% which was a disastrous strategy. This meant no lump sum. The members had not thought things through. They handed over £10 and left it to people they did not cross examine.
If the Trust are telling member they are building up a lump um then they should admit they made bad mistakes. The £1m under their care should be invested somewhere as allowed by the Standard Rules. It is not growing while all thing relating to football in increasing in cost due to football inflation.
The Trust even now needs to be cross examined very closely by members who have paid them a subscription. This money is only paying the banking and accountancy charges charges and legacy legal bills. Unless the £10 is invested it is devaluing 5% a year . | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:59 - Dec 26 with 1343 views | EagleEye |
| Swans shareholder interview on 12:49 - Dec 26 by QJumpingJack |
Please keep to the topic of the original post.
The Trust has nothing to do with this interview.
Thank you. |
I think a few are getting a little over sensitive over this post. Just 2 guys talking about investing in UK football clubs as an investment. Comments should be taken in context. I don’t see any direct disrespect to the club or the fans. “Swansea stinks” is just a comment saying that it is not a good place to invest & his money is now worth virtually nothing. Risky investments can always go one way or the other, you win some, you lose some, that’s all there is to it. Maybe he was duped in to investing $20k on the premise that he could turn a big profit with promotion back to the EPL. Maybe a bit due diligence would have been beneficial to him |  | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 15:44 - Dec 26 with 1304 views | RhonddaSwans |
| Swans shareholder interview on 12:49 - Dec 26 by QJumpingJack |
Please keep to the topic of the original post.
The Trust has nothing to do with this interview.
Thank you. |
the trust sucks! | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:01 - Dec 26 with 1279 views | QJumpingJack |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:59 - Dec 26 by EagleEye |
I think a few are getting a little over sensitive over this post. Just 2 guys talking about investing in UK football clubs as an investment. Comments should be taken in context. I don’t see any direct disrespect to the club or the fans. “Swansea stinks” is just a comment saying that it is not a good place to invest & his money is now worth virtually nothing. Risky investments can always go one way or the other, you win some, you lose some, that’s all there is to it. Maybe he was duped in to investing $20k on the premise that he could turn a big profit with promotion back to the EPL. Maybe a bit due diligence would have been beneficial to him |
the only way he would have made money would have been staying in the top flight in 2018 and the club gaining new revenues from the lucrative TV deals. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 19:37 - Dec 26 with 1208 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:01 - Dec 26 by QJumpingJack |
the only way he would have made money would have been staying in the top flight in 2018 and the club gaining new revenues from the lucrative TV deals. |
The truth about the Premier league is that to stay up clubs keep spending ever increasing amounts and the further up the table you manage to finish, the more money it costs you. You end up with a massive debt that is an Albatross around your neck and when/if you get relegated you are in trouble.
Huw Jenkins spent a bundle in his last year in charge and it caused us massive damage. We spent on Clucas, Bony and Ayew, Baston too was a Jenkins spend wasnt it? Mesa, any others? We spent huge sums on layers who we either sold at a big loss or who drained millions out of the club for little return with Ayew being the ony exception. That was chasing the dream which was not even a big dream, it was simply to not go down. More and more clubs fell at that dream. Now we are at a point where the clubs that come down pretty much go back up and the rest of us have debts we cannot service without selling and as the diamonds in the rough become harder to find the financial situation gets ever harder.
That's because the EPL is hoovering up most of the talent, even average players like Manning and Piroe end up at the big clubs because buying those players doen't just gve them a better squad, it also denies that talent to smaller clubs.
Football moves closer to a precipice and the big clubs will make sure the small clubs fall into the pit then hoover up those fans. Look at the semi pro leagues, clubs are falling like flies apparently. That is a disease that will spread up the tables and only the richest will survive. How long t takes is the only question. I don't know but it's coming unless players accept tney cannot demand 10-15k a week from a club with 15k crowds. They'll hav to learn that 4-5k is all we can afford. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans shareholder interview on 19:51 - Dec 26 with 1187 views | Fireboy2 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 19:37 - Dec 26 by SullutaCreturned |
The truth about the Premier league is that to stay up clubs keep spending ever increasing amounts and the further up the table you manage to finish, the more money it costs you. You end up with a massive debt that is an Albatross around your neck and when/if you get relegated you are in trouble.
Huw Jenkins spent a bundle in his last year in charge and it caused us massive damage. We spent on Clucas, Bony and Ayew, Baston too was a Jenkins spend wasnt it? Mesa, any others? We spent huge sums on layers who we either sold at a big loss or who drained millions out of the club for little return with Ayew being the ony exception. That was chasing the dream which was not even a big dream, it was simply to not go down. More and more clubs fell at that dream. Now we are at a point where the clubs that come down pretty much go back up and the rest of us have debts we cannot service without selling and as the diamonds in the rough become harder to find the financial situation gets ever harder.
That's because the EPL is hoovering up most of the talent, even average players like Manning and Piroe end up at the big clubs because buying those players doen't just gve them a better squad, it also denies that talent to smaller clubs.
Football moves closer to a precipice and the big clubs will make sure the small clubs fall into the pit then hoover up those fans. Look at the semi pro leagues, clubs are falling like flies apparently. That is a disease that will spread up the tables and only the richest will survive. How long t takes is the only question. I don't know but it's coming unless players accept tney cannot demand 10-15k a week from a club with 15k crowds. They'll hav to learn that 4-5k is all we can afford. |
Brilliant post 👏 |  | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 22:54 - Dec 26 with 1132 views | STID2017 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 20:15 - Dec 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The SCST were worth a staggering $35m in 2015-2016 before Brexit with 96% of their holding in a struggling Premier league team and roughly $1.6m in the bank. This is 'turbo' high risk in any portfolio.
They saw no reason to sell their shares and none of their members were either. I have been accused of being disrespectful of the members for not demanding the sale of shares while buyers were circling since early 2015.
This guy is hopping mad saying Swansea stink. No one criticises the Leaders and members of the SCST this time. This mug was effectively knocking on the SCST to buy their shares and they said no thanks. No one else were so short sighted.
The fact that no one is prepared to accept any blame tells me this group needs shutting down because they have not seen the light and will do it again. [Post edited 25 Dec 2023 20:20]
|
Please copy Santa and have a 364 day holiday.
The nonsense you constantly peddle on here is about as believable as a fat man in a red coat coming down my chimney two days ago ( especially as I haven't got one )
As for the people who bought into the club from the previous consortium, like us all we look at an investment and decide for ourselves if it is a good investment.
The club itself is a football team and by it's very nature cannot "stink"
It may succeed or fail, be exciting or boring to watch and at times "stink" on the pitch.
However any "stink" off the field is due to the current owners.
Hopefully see you next Dec 25th |  |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 01:24 - Dec 27 with 1099 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 22:54 - Dec 26 by STID2017 |
Please copy Santa and have a 364 day holiday.
The nonsense you constantly peddle on here is about as believable as a fat man in a red coat coming down my chimney two days ago ( especially as I haven't got one )
As for the people who bought into the club from the previous consortium, like us all we look at an investment and decide for ourselves if it is a good investment.
The club itself is a football team and by it's very nature cannot "stink"
It may succeed or fail, be exciting or boring to watch and at times "stink" on the pitch.
However any "stink" off the field is due to the current owners.
Hopefully see you next Dec 25th |
You do not believe anything I say because no one agrees with me. Football fans it seems are incapable of original thought and stay with the majority. This is no surprise.
The Trust owned 21% and pretty soon will be 5% owner by the excellent strategy of trying to get to 25% instead of selling shares in 2015 -2017. The London legal people ad agencies took £400,000 off them and demanded the value of 11% of the club for themselves if the Trust put in more money for the legal case. I recommended to the Trsut v/c and owner of SCFC2 that the strategy was completely wrong back in 2015 or so. His successor shut me down for not agreeing with the masses. Alternative view to legal action were not tolerated.
I know one thing Coleman and Gude are miles better than the SCST in management and at the moment that s not saying much.
I remember the fall out with the Venkys 13 years ago at Balckburn. The fans were desperate to get them out at all costs. All forgotten now it seems they are still owners and not doing too bad. They had a good spell with Tony Mowbrey. [Post edited 27 Dec 2023 1:26]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 02:02 - Dec 27 with 1089 views | Fireboy2 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 01:24 - Dec 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You do not believe anything I say because no one agrees with me. Football fans it seems are incapable of original thought and stay with the majority. This is no surprise.
The Trust owned 21% and pretty soon will be 5% owner by the excellent strategy of trying to get to 25% instead of selling shares in 2015 -2017. The London legal people ad agencies took £400,000 off them and demanded the value of 11% of the club for themselves if the Trust put in more money for the legal case. I recommended to the Trsut v/c and owner of SCFC2 that the strategy was completely wrong back in 2015 or so. His successor shut me down for not agreeing with the masses. Alternative view to legal action were not tolerated.
I know one thing Coleman and Gude are miles better than the SCST in management and at the moment that s not saying much.
I remember the fall out with the Venkys 13 years ago at Balckburn. The fans were desperate to get them out at all costs. All forgotten now it seems they are still owners and not doing too bad. They had a good spell with Tony Mowbrey. [Post edited 27 Dec 2023 1:26]
|
'I know one thing Coleman and Gude are miles better than the SCST in management and at the moment that s not saying much'
What a joke you are with that one 😂😂😂
'I remember the fall out with the Venkys 13 years ago at Blackburn. The fans were desperate to get them out at all costs. All forgotten now it seems they are still owners and not doing too bad. They had a good spell with Tony Mowbrey'
You are totally wrong there, I know lots of bburn fans and i can tell you it isn't forgotten at all, in fact the venkys have only ever been to bburn once and there a good reason for that.
These two examples show what a complete buffoon you are. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 08:29 - Dec 27 with 1036 views | QJumpingJack |
| Swans shareholder interview on 01:24 - Dec 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You do not believe anything I say because no one agrees with me. Football fans it seems are incapable of original thought and stay with the majority. This is no surprise.
The Trust owned 21% and pretty soon will be 5% owner by the excellent strategy of trying to get to 25% instead of selling shares in 2015 -2017. The London legal people ad agencies took £400,000 off them and demanded the value of 11% of the club for themselves if the Trust put in more money for the legal case. I recommended to the Trsut v/c and owner of SCFC2 that the strategy was completely wrong back in 2015 or so. His successor shut me down for not agreeing with the masses. Alternative view to legal action were not tolerated.
I know one thing Coleman and Gude are miles better than the SCST in management and at the moment that s not saying much.
I remember the fall out with the Venkys 13 years ago at Balckburn. The fans were desperate to get them out at all costs. All forgotten now it seems they are still owners and not doing too bad. They had a good spell with Tony Mowbrey. [Post edited 27 Dec 2023 1:26]
|
Please keep this thread to the original topic. There is no reason to blame the Trust. Thank you. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 10:14 - Dec 27 with 981 views | onehunglow |
| Swans shareholder interview on 08:29 - Dec 27 by QJumpingJack |
Please keep this thread to the original topic. There is no reason to blame the Trust. Thank you. |
Being a bit if a buffoon myself,all I would question is the competency of the Trust in safeguarding the club .
I thought they were being our back stop.
They are not to “blame” however this morass | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 10:20 - Dec 27 with 973 views | STID2017 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 01:24 - Dec 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You do not believe anything I say because no one agrees with me. Football fans it seems are incapable of original thought and stay with the majority. This is no surprise.
The Trust owned 21% and pretty soon will be 5% owner by the excellent strategy of trying to get to 25% instead of selling shares in 2015 -2017. The London legal people ad agencies took £400,000 off them and demanded the value of 11% of the club for themselves if the Trust put in more money for the legal case. I recommended to the Trsut v/c and owner of SCFC2 that the strategy was completely wrong back in 2015 or so. His successor shut me down for not agreeing with the masses. Alternative view to legal action were not tolerated.
I know one thing Coleman and Gude are miles better than the SCST in management and at the moment that s not saying much.
I remember the fall out with the Venkys 13 years ago at Balckburn. The fans were desperate to get them out at all costs. All forgotten now it seems they are still owners and not doing too bad. They had a good spell with Tony Mowbrey. [Post edited 27 Dec 2023 1:26]
|
Very much to the contrary, i very much disagree with many views on here and elsewhere.
My point to you is not just my disagreement with your anarchic views, but the fact you are like a stuck record.
I certainly agree with many posters on here at how boring and single minded your views are.
It is like being stuck in the corner of a pub with someone and no matter how often you try to change the subject they still bring it back to the same boring point | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview "Swans stink" on 16:46 - Dec 27 with 909 views | Whiterockin |
If the trust were suspicious of the American investment, it looks like they were correct to think that way. |  | | |
| Swans shareholder interview "Swans stink" on 17:23 - Dec 27 with 877 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview "Swans stink" on 16:46 - Dec 27 by Whiterockin |
If the trust were suspicious of the American investment, it looks like they were correct to think that way. |
The Trust had total assets of £21,000,000 with 21%. At this time 1% was worth a cool $1,680,000. The Trust said they were not keen on selling and wanted more share not less even after meeting the US people .
Not one of the 1000 member said a word. An historical catastrophic error. Not really an error as this organisation was in drift.
Without Levien and co Swansea would be in league 1 or 2.
The SCST went to court to get out as much money form the club they could and saw SCFC as a sinking ship. They agreed prohibitory expensive fees.
They took legal action as they believed the US owners would asset strip and put the club into administration ad the sages of forums told them. As a scenario IT WAS FAKE.
When Silverstein arrived it changed everything as the US owners opened a Convertible loan note of some £13m or so (from memory). The ship was not sinking and the owners were investing not asset stripping.
I suspect they told the Trust we will only convert it into shares if you drop the case and settle. The case was dropped an the loan note duly converted. An additional £10-15m or so has been invested.
This is my perspective. Yours is different and a lot simpler and easy to understand for the less well read amongst us. I think after a few years of my thoughts it is getting through to one or two.
We are in dodgey times Watson has not performed so well. Ntjoe and Kukharecvic Tymon etc could develop into stars. Let's hope so. [Post edited 27 Dec 2023 17:26]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:40 - Dec 27 with 855 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 12:35 - Dec 26 by SullutaCreturned |
A complete wind up post because even someone with the IQ of a dog turd would know that the investors in Levein and Kaplans group only did so hoping to make profit, to take money out of our club.
Whereas everyone who joined the trust did so knowing the trusts raison d'etre was to build up a lump sum so if the club went bankrupt or had severe financial issues in the future they may have enough to save it.
Two completely different reasons which this poster has twisted yet again to attack Swansea fans yet to big up people hoping to profit directly from our club. |
If Levein and Kaplan cash in then so will the fans group. They have been guaranteed a minimum 5% holding.
Although this need verifying this means 5% minimum of any sale price with an agreement of drag on and tag on terms. These are legal clauses i have learned about on this forum
In the unlikely event of promotion this season Swansea will become a Premier league team. The price of a Premier league team in 2024 will be around £200m. Burnley were sold for that two yeas ago and TV right and advertising rights have gone up not down.
At this point the Trust should offer their shares to the other owners and get out with a nice cheque of £24,000,000 for their 12% holding. When the Trust was worth £21m the member were fast asleep discussing where the board member should sit on match day.
You seem a political dinosaur marooned in a industrial era of workers and owners. These days the miners son can do well for himself if he is switched on and ready to trade. There is profit for everyone in the Premier league. Taffy can fill his boots at the church built by the Englishman. He / she has to be alert though and take advice of business consultant not lawyers. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview "Swans stink" on 17:55 - Dec 27 with 841 views | QJumpingJack |
Back to the original post - can Levien and Coleman take action against the shareholder in the video? | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 20:04 - Dec 27 with 789 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 02:02 - Dec 27 by Fireboy2 |
'I know one thing Coleman and Gude are miles better than the SCST in management and at the moment that s not saying much'
What a joke you are with that one 😂😂😂
'I remember the fall out with the Venkys 13 years ago at Blackburn. The fans were desperate to get them out at all costs. All forgotten now it seems they are still owners and not doing too bad. They had a good spell with Tony Mowbrey'
You are totally wrong there, I know lots of bburn fans and i can tell you it isn't forgotten at all, in fact the venkys have only ever been to bburn once and there a good reason for that.
These two examples show what a complete buffoon you are. |
Personal abuse is a defining feature of the dimwits I come across on here. The Chief being the most vocal. At least he could debate and got verbal after losing the debate.
Blackburn protested aggressively 13 years ago like you are pathetically calling for now. Guess what the Venky's are still there. Protesting fans put off buyers not encourage them.
Your 'brilliant plan' involves pushing the value of the club down to make it easier to sell. It does not work. You favour putting hard working people in the club shop out of work by encouraging a boycott. None of your family work for the cub presumably?
This was the cunning plan of the legal case led by the past Trust leadership that were asleep when they should have been selling shares. A £21m legal bill given to the US owners would have been devaluing for the club and seen it drop to league 2. Many Trust loyalists wanted the old days of league 1 and 2 when their £10 subscription actually count. (Exeter city) | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 20:21 - Dec 27 with 774 views | Fireboy2 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 20:04 - Dec 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Personal abuse is a defining feature of the dimwits I come across on here. The Chief being the most vocal. At least he could debate and got verbal after losing the debate.
Blackburn protested aggressively 13 years ago like you are pathetically calling for now. Guess what the Venky's are still there. Protesting fans put off buyers not encourage them.
Your 'brilliant plan' involves pushing the value of the club down to make it easier to sell. It does not work. You favour putting hard working people in the club shop out of work by encouraging a boycott. None of your family work for the cub presumably?
This was the cunning plan of the legal case led by the past Trust leadership that were asleep when they should have been selling shares. A £21m legal bill given to the US owners would have been devaluing for the club and seen it drop to league 2. Many Trust loyalists wanted the old days of league 1 and 2 when their £10 subscription actually count. (Exeter city) |
Personal abuse? You are one to talk after slagging off swansea fans.
You said that blackburn fans are over the venkys, they aren't,believe me, how many blackburn fans do you know? Alot don't go anyone because of them.
The owners have already made cuts to club employees, my plan won't push the value of the club down the owners are doing a good job by themselves, their reputation is that bad no decent manager will go near us.
Re the trust yawn 🥱 | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:49 - Dec 28 with 676 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 20:21 - Dec 27 by Fireboy2 |
Personal abuse? You are one to talk after slagging off swansea fans.
You said that blackburn fans are over the venkys, they aren't,believe me, how many blackburn fans do you know? Alot don't go anyone because of them.
The owners have already made cuts to club employees, my plan won't push the value of the club down the owners are doing a good job by themselves, their reputation is that bad no decent manager will go near us.
Re the trust yawn 🥱 |
I am not one of 100 attacking an individual. I am one attacking 1000 for their totally wretched performance based on laziness and complacency.
Democracy only works if the stakeholders engage in decisions and strategy. Lazy members paid the £10 at the door and left other make a mass of things with an illogical strategy that was harmful to the club and in effect the whole city.
The experiment of having fans in the boardroom has failed. Fans backed the Trust all the way to severely damage the club and give the owners a £25m black eye while handing over £11m plus to English lawyers and agencies. Only I argued against it.
You supported it. My logic is s down in black and white. After the surrender of the Trust they become 'Yawn'. The members have been asleep for two decades. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview "Swans stink" on 14:51 - Dec 28 with 674 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview "Swans stink" on 17:55 - Dec 27 by QJumpingJack |
Back to the original post - can Levien and Coleman take action against the shareholder in the video? |
On the basis of what? | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:52 - Dec 28 with 675 views | Whiterockin |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:49 - Dec 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am not one of 100 attacking an individual. I am one attacking 1000 for their totally wretched performance based on laziness and complacency.
Democracy only works if the stakeholders engage in decisions and strategy. Lazy members paid the £10 at the door and left other make a mass of things with an illogical strategy that was harmful to the club and in effect the whole city.
The experiment of having fans in the boardroom has failed. Fans backed the Trust all the way to severely damage the club and give the owners a £25m black eye while handing over £11m plus to English lawyers and agencies. Only I argued against it.
You supported it. My logic is s down in black and white. After the surrender of the Trust they become 'Yawn'. The members have been asleep for two decades. |
You really think the trust handed over £11M to lawyers.  | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:39 - Dec 29 with 618 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:52 - Dec 28 by Whiterockin |
You really think the trust handed over £11M to lawyers. |
The Trust based on accounts paid legal fees of around £400,000 from what i can determine. Their biggest investment in anything to date. A West acres house for the club to accommodate football people would have been better perhaps bringing in a rental income with house price growth.
They were negotiating an hybrid 'no win no fee' deal with their advisors / funders. According to the Trust themselves the fees were very high. I called them "eye watering". They wanted more than 50% recovered from the other owners / previous sellers.
A win of £21m would see around £11m heading east into the pockets of third parties.
Silverstein and the Levien group put around £13m into the Convertible loan note. Once they did this the Trust plan was over as some of the loan note (a dept to the club would land an £8-9m repayment notice on Mr Winters table).
The club would have to return the note to the loanees to help pay the Trusts legal bills. This meant the Trust could not argue the the case would not harm the club. The legal case would have devastated the club. You can be sure all responsibility for a real 'fire sale' would be directed at the SCST in that event.
You seem to be struggling with this. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
