£65m

In my posts for some time, I keep having an issue with the £65m selling fee. First it was far too low, so why did Jenkins and Morgan sell for that ? As posted many times, GS was £45m on his own. Why exclude The Trust, there are dozens of why this and why that. Jenkins had a reasonably good income, why jeopardise for a few £m.

Did money change hands at that time ? Did they have the money or a promise to take the money from sale of assets over three years ?

I am not saying this is what happened, but the whole deal just does not stand up. What is the real deal, what was agreed ?

It was clear they what they were here to do, was it because Jenkins and Morgan needed front men to do it for them ?

Why so many different companies ? Why are Jenkins and Morgan still directors ?

They seem to be going to great lengths to hide a simple transaction i.e. sell a business,old owners move on with the money, new owners move in, a make it a success and so on.........This is the complete opposite to what has happened here, and is continuing to happen.

Too many things are wrong.
bigoak

Comments

  • The whole fiasco is slightly odd there’s too many unknowns in the whole thing . I can understand Morgan and his misses wanting to sell due to their split but to sell for £65 mill then a year later sell 3 players Siggy Cork and Llorente for the same equivalent does look like a bargain basement sell by the old board . We can only wait and hope the sg@@t hits the fan
  • well, we will hopefully soon find out what the deal is, as the Trust is taking the club to Court to discover exactly what it is.
  • delay is problem - the Trust should immediately have gone to Court and challenged the validity of the sale
    They didn't and the question for them is why no action until now?
    was not silence acquiescence?
    what is the Trust's evidence that they were not silent but strung along with promises about mediation
    if they can get a case heard at all they will do well
  • Did they pay Morgan and Jenkins 65M?
    Without them showing their bank balances we will never know.
    The way these guys work, borrowing constantly on their so called investments, I don't believe they did.
    They have come in to teach them how to make money, 25/29 all paying in but how much and to whom.
    Are they buying shares of the club, no are they buying a share of the owners shares? are they buying into the Association ltd which is now the operating company, who knows. Morgan and Co are more powerful in this company and the other 2 than before
    Are the trust seeing the books No.
    Are they seeing the clubs balance sheets or the banks balance sheets, massive difference.
    The bank balance sheets will show where it goes and to whom it goes.
    There are far too many complexities, they have deliberately made it so.
    One good financial expert with the company accounts, the companies bank statements and invoices could tell us everything in a week. better still the bank account in Delaware, this is where they bank.
    The banks in Delaware are renowned for tax avoidance and where most hedge funds do business in the States.
    It wouldn't take a genius to get to the bottom of it, however without transparent documentation its impossible.
    I feel sorry for Lisa and Stuart who are only shown what these gits want to show.
    Not before long they will do the dirty on someone within, blowing the whistle on them will then look promising.
    Conspiracy theory? conspiring to disclose, Fact.


  • delay is problem - the Trust should immediately have gone to Court and challenged the validity of the sale
    They didn't and the question for them is why no action until now?
    was not silence acquiescence?
    what is the Trust's evidence that they were not silent but strung along with promises about mediation
    if they can get a case heard at all they will do well
    Spot on NS2.    They could have stopped the sale and exercısed theır rıghts.   Instead they let thıngs drıft. I do not lıke the way they work to be honest. 
  • What do they say about hindsight. The Trust have acted legally, something you can’t say about the old directors and the new owners.
  • delay is problem - the Trust should immediately have gone to Court and challenged the validity of the sale
    They didn't and the question for them is why no action until now?
    was not silence acquiescence?
    what is the Trust's evidence that they were not silent but strung along with promises about mediation
    if they can get a case heard at all they will do well
    Sorry but incorrect.
    any judge worth their salt would want to see their courtroom as the final option when all others have been exhausted.
    They should also look very sternly at the party who have looked to thwart engagement in dialogue & the process of mediation.
  • edited September 2018
    Andrew2 said:
    In my posts for some time, I keep having an issue with the £65m selling fee. First it was far too low, so why did Jenkins and Morgan sell for that ? As posted many times, GS was £45m on his own. Why exclude The Trust, there are dozens of why this and why that. Jenkins had a reasonably good income, why jeopardise for a few £m.

    Did money change hands at that time ? Did they have the money or a promise to take the money from sale of assets over three years ?

    I am not saying this is what happened, but the whole deal just does not stand up. What is the real deal, what was agreed ?

    It was clear they what they were here to do, was it because Jenkins and Morgan needed front men to do it for them ?

    Why so many different companies ? Why are Jenkins and Morgan still directors ?

    They seem to be going to great lengths to hide a simple transaction i.e. sell a business,old owners move on with the money, new owners move in, a make it a success and so on.........This is the complete opposite to what has happened here, and is continuing to happen.

    Too many things are wrong.
    That's a fair point Andrew regarding the sale price - it did appear to have been undervalued - no view on the other stuff,  but it could have been just desperation on the part of the sellers to quit and make a good profit before it all went wrong.
  • Philip
    I posted months ago it was clear The Trust would have no access to the accounts that matter, and that seems to be the case. 

    What really frustrates me is I post what is happening, or about to happen. I then have a battering from people telling me "the trust have top accountants" blah blah....then , here we go, it is clear they have no idea what is going on, as I posted weeks ago.

    Why are so many on this site so blinkered ?

    I have explained in detail over the last three or four seasons EXACTLY what is happening, and now, here it is.Exactly how I told everyone it would be.

    I have told anyone who will listen it WILL end in administration, how could anyone think otherwise ? How can the Trust wait for anything, it is obvious what they are doing months before it happens,they are simply transparent in their actions, as Jenkins was before them.

    Everything the owners do is in the first instance to deceive. They have done this not only with words but actions. 

    Now, we have The Trust telling everyone they will take some form of Court action, these guys are so far advanced with the plan, the Court action is a joke to them. They are above and beyond recompense already.

    Grief, why can the Trust not play the dirty game, its the only game that wins. No action through any court will effect these guys.


  • Those that are blind don't want to see.
    Some actually believe nothing underhanded is taking place.
    The Trust are now realising they have been done.
    The Trust are not dirty players, they might need to be.
    People like us need to be in the Trust, anyone who can help dig up information regardless of the source need to feed them, they can be dirty as well by not declaring where they get their information from  unless it comes to court.

    Like Cadleigh states now is the time to band together, mistakes have been made, that was then, we can win this through, it will take time, it may indeed go to administration eventually because these guys will flit when the money runs out. We need to be ready when that happens.
    We will need a pot of money when this happens and it will.
    As it develops more and more will join, there is strength in numbers to instruct the Trust what to do next.
    They now have a very good commercial lawyer something that was lacking.
    The consensus of opinion on here is we want the Yanks out, joining the Trust in huge numbers makes that easier.
    If the Trust was weak before, its because they did not have the support of many, they obviously have made mistakes, they were not calculated money motivated mistakes, just misguided and trustful of the old share holders.
    That trust in them has now gone forever.
    I will work with you and anyone who is willing to gain the evidence and put the Supporters Trust in the strongest position possible to fight these greedy shysters. 
    garythenotrashcougar
  • well, we will hopefully soon find out what the deal is, as the Trust is taking the club to Court to discover exactly what it is.
    Where does it say the Trust are taking the club to court, if anything they are taking the old and new shareholders but even that's not a forgone conclusion, yet, it will be up to its members
  • Yes mediation does precede the court case, which happens if and when other avenues are exhausted
    The mediation is conducted by lawyers - it's a lawyer led process so I'm not sure what the owners are talking about when they say they want to sit down amicably without any lawyers present
    Either they mean they don't want mediation - in the sense it's meant in UK law - and want to use their great negotiating and persuasion skills to schmooze the problem away ( overpowering those little Welsh guys with their amazing intelligence ) OR
    They are scared of what a court case might reveal
    Either way, bring on ( real ) mediation and the follow up to it as necessary

    azzuriswan
  • The seeds of suspicion are firmly planted in my mind, the longer I look at historical dealings of certain people the worse the picture gets. I believe the secret is to fully scrutinise people who were responsible for running the club in an official capacity   

    There is one director who has resigned from 4 companies.

    3 dissolved 1 liquidated, 1 dissolved in 2013 after voluntary liquidation in 2010, whether all these creditors were paid off I don’t know.

    Dissolving companies, puts the onus on companies not the individuals, it’s a legal way of not going bankrupt.

    Dissolved company directors are only prevented from not trading with the same names or similar names.

    Obviously a bankrupt cannot be a director again without a qualifying period and has to give VAT guarantees  up front.

    This one director, who had failed 4 times during his administration for Swansea City, was clearly not any kind of financial wizard.

    Just after the dissolved company in 2013 , In 2014 he took over as DOF and started running the club with consent, this was obviously a poor decision by the board based on past achievements when running as a boss.

    By 2014 we made our first major loss all being that money coming in was set against the next years trading.

    By 2015 we did the same, with a statement saying we needed investors, late in that year the wheels were in motion.

    By July 2016 the Yanks were in, the same director keeps his positions together with a pay rise and a pension upgrade.

    Now based on financial history and the introduction of so called new investors by the same director, would anyone be daft enough to belief we are in good hands.

    Could they resign and voluntarily dissolve or liquidate the 2002Ltd and continue trading as Swansea City Association Ltd, is the question I have been asking, can it be done, it appears so.    

  • Phillip

    I posted something similar a number of years ago, when the Jenkins plan was being hatched. As a matter of interest,in an early match day programme, it may have been the first or second game at The Liberty, Jenkins wrote along the lines......you can be sure to trust us all as Directors as we have no insolvent or ex bankrupt  directorships behind us.....etc. He was trying to say that anyone who has failed at business can not be trusted (which I do not agree with, but that is not the issue here)

    He wrote this in his match day notes, I must try and go through the old programmes to find it. I wonder if he now feels that he can not be trusted as he has clearly failed elsewhere as well as  his disaster with Swansea City ?

    Maybe somebody can find it and post a copy on line ? It may even have been the first match ?

  • Phillip said:

    The seeds of suspicion are firmly planted in my mind, the longer I look at historical dealings of certain people the worse the picture gets. I believe the secret is to fully scrutinise people who were responsible for running the club in an official capacity   

    There is one director who has resigned from 4 companies.

    3 dissolved 1 liquidated, 1 dissolved in 2013 after voluntary liquidation in 2010, whether all these creditors were paid off I don’t know.

    Dissolving companies, puts the onus on companies not the individuals, it’s a legal way of not going bankrupt.

    Dissolved company directors are only prevented from not trading with the same names or similar names.

    Obviously a bankrupt cannot be a director again without a qualifying period and has to give VAT guarantees  up front.

    This one director, who had failed 4 times during his administration for Swansea City, was clearly not any kind of financial wizard.

    Just after the dissolved company in 2013 , In 2014 he took over as DOF and started running the club with consent, this was obviously a poor decision by the board based on past achievements when running as a boss.

    By 2014 we made our first major loss all being that money coming in was set against the next years trading.

    By 2015 we did the same, with a statement saying we needed investors, late in that year the wheels were in motion.

    By July 2016 the Yanks were in, the same director keeps his positions together with a pay rise and a pension upgrade.

    Now based on financial history and the introduction of so called new investors by the same director, would anyone be daft enough to belief we are in good hands.

    Could they resign and voluntarily dissolve or liquidate the 2002Ltd and continue trading as Swansea City Association Ltd, is the question I have been asking, can it be done, it appears so.    

    Hi Phillip -

    Just to clarify one thing regarding the "dissolved" status of a company. 

    I'm not sure what happened to those companies you've referred to above but the fact that a company has been "dissolved" does not necessarily been there were problems associated with it. I owned a company for a several years when I was self employed and when I decided to cease trading and close the company, Companies House gave the company a status of "dissolved". There were no issues with the company, it was profitable and had a fund surplus at the end of trading- I just decided to close it . So the "dissolved" status shouldn't necessarily indicate a problem with a company per se.
  • Yes Jeff, I also dissolved a company when I stopped trading, do debts just stopped trading and notified companies house, it was all done in days.
    Casey Roofing  went into voluntary liquidation in 2010 they owed money to creditors it took Stones the solicitors nearly 3 years to dissolve it, probably satisfying the creditors by LBS who now run it.
    1 of the companies is down as liquidated I cant remember now if it was HJ Builders, HJ Property or RD Plastics all failed.
    After his disasters, he took up the reins of DOF in 2014 after just making a loss, he did the same in 2015 which earned him Footballs businessman of the year and an OBE, obviously none of the voters new of his past.
    Whilst running the club from 02-12 he did OK listening to football people, after that I believe the £ note signs were signalling a change.
    No longer sitting in away boardrooms having lunch with lesser directors, he was now sitting with the big boys and he wanted what they had.
    He has amassed a fortune through Swansea City Football club, it has been me, me me.
    Without  the club and later loans owed he couldn't have sold his shares, he has relinquished his shares in 2002Ltd for much and is now making even more under the guise of Swansea City Association and a salary of 666K a year(with pension)
    He is rich and the 2002Ltd is skint.
    Ask the people who previously lost their jobs through his incompetence, how many more will whilst he takes home 17K a month, just salary.
    He is the key to our clubs problems.   
    Jackaremegarythenotrashcougar
  • Jacktar said:
    well, we will hopefully soon find out what the deal is, as the Trust is taking the club to Court to discover exactly what it is.
    Where does it say the Trust are taking the club to court, if anything they are taking the old and new shareholders but even that's not a forgone conclusion, yet, it will be up to its members
    Jackareme

    There may be a misunderstanding here. The trust is issuing court proceedings this Friday to obtain financial information that they have requested and are entitled to see. This is not the court action relating to the sale
  • deekay said:
    Jacktar said:
    well, we will hopefully soon find out what the deal is, as the Trust is taking the club to Court to discover exactly what it is.
    Where does it say the Trust are taking the club to court, if anything they are taking the old and new shareholders but even that's not a forgone conclusion, yet, it will be up to its members
    Jackareme

    There may be a misunderstanding here. The trust is issuing court proceedings this Friday to obtain financial information that they have requested and are entitled to see. This is not the court action relating to the sale
    Hi deekay,

    My understanding is that there are two sets of documents that have been requested but not yet provided - one set relates to the sale and the other relates to the club's current financial situation. I personally don't want to paste the words used in the Trust email because we've been asked not to, but if you look elsewhere at the "leaked" announcement you will see reference to documents relating to the sale.
    Jackattack
  • Jeff

    If The Trust now is requesting financial information via a court order, would it be safe to assume then that since the takeover The Trust have not seen any financial records that can be trusted as true ?

    I have posted my opinion that The Trust have no idea of the financial position many times, it seems that is the case then ?
  • Not sure what the WTF emoji under Jeff’s comments is for. I’ve seen this happen a number of times where it doesn’t correspond with what has been written.
  • SeaJack

    It may have been put there because I, inadvertently put my response to Jackareme and not Jacktar. Apologies for the error :o
  • Jeff

    Point taken, and you are correct. However, this is still not the court action that I believe Jacktar is referring to when he states that it will be up to the members whether or not we take such action. 
  • edited September 2018
    Urgh - This has got a bit messy 

    deekay - yes, agreed, Jacktar was talking about the share sale legal action and I agree with everything Jacktar has written and I also forgive him for the WTF :)  (Edit: just spotted it was Jackattack that did the WTF so it's even more confusing … anyway, I'm logging out before it gets worse! )

    Andrew - the Trust are not requesting financial information via a court order. I personally don't want to paste the words used in the Trust email because we've been asked not to, but if you look elsewhere at the "leaked" announcement you will see reference to documents relating to the sale or, if you are a Trust member, look at the email because that will clarify things.
  • edited September 2018
    Jacktar said:
    well, we will hopefully soon find out what the deal is, as the Trust is taking the club to Court to discover exactly what it is.
    Where does it say the Trust are taking the club to court, if anything they are taking the old and new shareholders but even that's not a forgone conclusion, yet, it will be up to its members
    Read the Trust's statement. they are taking legal action in order to get access to the sale documents prior to them going to mediation on the fact they have been excluded from the same deal to sell shares.

    they need those documents as part of this process, and have been refused access to them to date.

    Please keep up!

    "the Trust board has instructed our lawyers to initiate legal action to obtain access to these documents, unless they are provided within a further 7 days. This is a limited legal action specifically to obtain access to these documents. It is not the same as undertaking legal action relating to the sale itself and its impact on the Trust’s shareholding. We hope those issues can still be resolved as part of the discussions that are scheduled to take place in the next few weeks. However, these documents are important so that the Trust can best advise its members on the next course of action to take, which could mean undertaking legal action relating to the 2016 sale and its impact on the Trust’s position."
  • Jacktar said:
    well, we will hopefully soon find out what the deal is, as the Trust is taking the club to Court to discover exactly what it is.
    Where does it say the Trust are taking the club to court, if anything they are taking the old and new shareholders but even that's not a forgone conclusion, yet, it will be up to its members
    Read the Trust's statement. they are taking legal action in order to get access to the sale documents prior to them going to mediation on the fact they have been excluded from the same deal to sell shares.

    they need those documents as part of this process, and have been refused access to them to date.

    Please keep up!

    "the Trust board has instructed our lawyers to initiate legal action to obtain access to these documents, unless they are provided within a further 7 days. This is a limited legal action specifically to obtain access to these documents. It is not the same as undertaking legal action relating to the sale itself and its impact on the Trust’s shareholding. We hope those issues can still be resolved as part of the discussions that are scheduled to take place in the next few weeks. However, these documents are important so that the Trust can best advise its members on the next course of action to take, which could mean undertaking legal action relating to the 2016 sale and its impact on the Trust’s position."
    Can only apologies, jumped in to quick
  • Andrew2 said:
    Philip
    I posted months ago it was clear The Trust would have no access to the accounts that matter, and that seems to be the case. 

    What really frustrates me is I post what is happening, or about to happen. I then have a battering from people telling me "the trust have top accountants" blah blah....then , here we go, it is clear they have no idea what is going on, as I posted weeks ago.

    Why are so many on this site so blinkered ?

    I have explained in detail over the last three or four seasons EXACTLY what is happening, and now, here it is.Exactly how I told everyone it would be.

    I have told anyone who will listen it WILL end in administration, how could anyone think otherwise ? How can the Trust wait for anything, it is obvious what they are doing months before it happens,they are simply transparent in their actions, as Jenkins was before them.

    Everything the owners do is in the first instance to deceive. They have done this not only with words but actions. 

    Now, we have The Trust telling everyone they will take some form of Court action, these guys are so far advanced with the plan, the Court action is a joke to them. They are above and beyond recompense already.

    Grief, why can the Trust not play the dirty game, its the only game that wins. No action through any court will effect these guys.


    Phillip.
    I have been in discussion on the Trust site & Roger Brace has made these comments, would you care to offer your view please & Roger was asking if you have any evidence to support your concerns & have they been passed on to the Trust.

    Roger Brace Stephen Richardson Consider the facts that we know. 1. The parachute payments are administered by the Premier League and are paid to those clubs who are/were members. The payments would not be paid to a third party, in my view. 2. The club is administered through Swansea City Association Football Club Limited, the wholly owned subsidiary of the ultimate holding company, Swansea City Football 2002 Limited. 3. The Trust owns 21.1% of the issued share capital of Swansea City Football 2002 Limited and receives or has access to the periodic, probably monthly, management accounts of both companies. I suggest that even a lay person would notice that the parachute payment had gone missing. £30M is a big sum of money. No, for the parachute payments to be diverted, I would suggest, is not possible. 4. The payment of management charges or other spurious payments to a third party, on the other hand, is always a possibility against which the Trust must satisfy itself that they have not and do not occur. If they do, it would be an infringement of minority shareholders rights and it would be back to Court. 5. The accounts are audited and although it would not form part of the statutory duty of the auditors, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will have an eye for such transactions, thus reducing the risk of such an occurrence. 6. Stuart McDonald, the Trust representative on the Board of 2002 Limited, is an accountant, I believe. In summary, taken in the round, I do not give credence to the "reds in the bed" theories that are circulating, except for No 4 above. The failure of the owners to become involved in the mediation process is a tactic which is employed frequently. It tests the resolve of the plaintiff which is why the Trust must go back to the Court and request judgement against the defendants or for their right to defend to be struck out. Hit them hard , not sit on our hands as the Trust appears to be doing. The problem with the Trust is they are too "nice" and civilised. They need to toughen up. They also need to respond to my questions of them!!
  • StephenR said:
    Andrew2 said:
    Philip
    I posted months ago it was clear The Trust would have no access to the accounts that matter, and that seems to be the case. 

    What really frustrates me is I post what is happening, or about to happen. I then have a battering from people telling me "the trust have top accountants" blah blah....then , here we go, it is clear they have no idea what is going on, as I posted weeks ago.

    Why are so many on this site so blinkered ?

    I have explained in detail over the last three or four seasons EXACTLY what is happening, and now, here it is.Exactly how I told everyone it would be.

    I have told anyone who will listen it WILL end in administration, how could anyone think otherwise ? How can the Trust wait for anything, it is obvious what they are doing months before it happens,they are simply transparent in their actions, as Jenkins was before them.

    Everything the owners do is in the first instance to deceive. They have done this not only with words but actions. 

    Now, we have The Trust telling everyone they will take some form of Court action, these guys are so far advanced with the plan, the Court action is a joke to them. They are above and beyond recompense already.

    Grief, why can the Trust not play the dirty game, its the only game that wins. No action through any court will effect these guys.


    Phillip.
    I have been in discussion on the Trust site & Roger Brace has made these comments, would you care to offer your view please & Roger was asking if you have any evidence to support your concerns & have they been passed on to the Trust.

    Roger Brace Stephen Richardson Consider the facts that we know. 1. The parachute payments are administered by the Premier League and are paid to those clubs who are/were members. The payments would not be paid to a third party, in my view. 2. The club is administered through Swansea City Association Football Club Limited, the wholly owned subsidiary of the ultimate holding company, Swansea City Football 2002 Limited. 3. The Trust owns 21.1% of the issued share capital of Swansea City Football 2002 Limited and receives or has access to the periodic, probably monthly, management accounts of both companies. I suggest that even a lay person would notice that the parachute payment had gone missing. £30M is a big sum of money. No, for the parachute payments to be diverted, I would suggest, is not possible. 4. The payment of management charges or other spurious payments to a third party, on the other hand, is always a possibility against which the Trust must satisfy itself that they have not and do not occur. If they do, it would be an infringement of minority shareholders rights and it would be back to Court. 5. The accounts are audited and although it would not form part of the statutory duty of the auditors, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will have an eye for such transactions, thus reducing the risk of such an occurrence. 6. Stuart McDonald, the Trust representative on the Board of 2002 Limited, is an accountant, I believe. In summary, taken in the round, I do not give credence to the "reds in the bed" theories that are circulating, except for No 4 above. The failure of the owners to become involved in the mediation process is a tactic which is employed frequently. It tests the resolve of the plaintiff which is why the Trust must go back to the Court and request judgement against the defendants or for their right to defend to be struck out. Hit them hard , not sit on our hands as the Trust appears to be doing. The problem with the Trust is they are too "nice" and civilised. They need to toughen up. They also need to respond to my questions of them!!
    Philip/Andrew2 could you respond to this please, if you have a view
  • Stephen
    The issue is the owners do not care about SCFC, The Trust, The Court or anyone else. They will do as they want, and nobody can stop them.

    Lets take an example. They remove £500 in management fees. Is that too much or too little ? Who decides the figure, and on what grounds.

    Lets say they take £5m as above, who can stop them ? The minority share holder by going to court ? To say what ? We think its too much ? Says who ? The Court may ask if the the minority share holder is able to run the club in all aspects, including financial if the majority share holder was not there. Answer is no.

    Lets say they take £20m in fees, as above. 

    They can take whatever they want, there may be a legal case against them, by which time an insolvent business would be in administration. 

    They are in the box seat from all angles, The Trust are throwing popcorn into the wind, its all too little very much too late...three years too late to be exact.

    There is no possible way any legal action will stop these guys doing exactly what they want...The trust could throw another £50k at QC opinion if they want, wasting their time/effort and money. 

    These guys know the ropes, and the boundaries they can work in, too sharp for our lot sorry Stephen.
Sign In or Register to comment.