Football betting site Betway

«1

Comments

  • Every player has a price on their head and if that price can be obtained, move on. Since when have we become a club that can afford to keep players, let alone managers.
    Jackareme
  • I’ve always felt you can’t expect anything else, than a player wanting to achieve more, at a higher level, with more wages. 
    Just like you or I, in the real world. 
    My only gripe is when we don’t receive the “proper” rate for them. 
    Its great that Trevor Birch is now in charge of transfers. 
    Lets hope the owners take his advice, and we don’t see another Daniel James to Leeds fiasco. 
  • Lets wait and see what happens but we need ready replacements on tap just in case
    J4cka
  • I agree with most in that as long as the price is right, then these players can go if they want to.

    I've been impressed with Birch, so far. So I would trust him to do a deal that gets us the best value.

    What worries me is how much Cooper will be given to reinvest. That is something Birch will have little or no say over. As I have said before, the Chuckle Brothers still hold the purse strings so he will do as he's told. 
    Jackareme
  • I worry about that too Gary.I expect a lot of clubs are tempted to test us with bids,all very well as long as the proceeds are at least partly retained
  • The time to worry is when the owners renege on promises made to Birch.
  • Dont be too sure that Birch will bend over backwards and take one up the Gary Glitter - whether it is Pride weekend or not.

    He is his own man, and I don't think he is hugely impressed by what has gone on prior to his appointment - and not just by Jenkins' role. 

    And I think he has a large amount of autonomy in order to run the club. because he would not have come if he did not.
  • Agree @Mark_Jack_London we have said before TB’s reputation will be worth far more to him than staying at Swansea.
  • Dont be too sure that Birch will bend over backwards and take one up the Gary Glitter - whether it is Pride weekend or not.

    He is his own man, and I don't think he is hugely impressed by what has gone on prior to his appointment - and not just by Jenkins' role. 

    And I think he has a large amount of autonomy in order to run the club. because he would not have come if he did not.
    Mark, I hope you're right because if you are, it will mean that Cooper is afforded far more support than Potter got.

    Let me be clear on Birch - I don't doubt the man's personal integrity or will to do his very best. It's just that I believe, like Jenkins before him, though he will have a level of autonomy, when it comes to signing cheques he will ultimately have to do as he's told. If he doesn't, be under no illusions, they'll get rid of him (or he'll walk on principle) and they'll bring someone in who will.
  • Anyone know how much Birch is on?
    I heard there is a possibility of shares as well. 
  • Its like this, What price do the the owners put on us staying in the Championship? They put a small price on us staying in Prem and look what happened! If they do the same this year it will be a relegation fight. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing,
  • bigoak said:
    Its like this, What price do the the owners put on us staying in the Championship? They put a small price on us staying in Prem and look what happened! If they do the same this year it will be a relegation fight. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing,
    They spent big in the Prem, just on the wrong players.
  • @jollyboy You are obviously a bit of a zealot, but let’s get the facts right. The shareholders didn’t spend big. The only money that changed hands was between shareholders at the share purchase.

    The made no difference at all to the resources available to the club.

    After the first couple of years, the club spent the Premier League money as it came in  and did so wastefullly, in anticipation that the Premier League money would continue.

    So it’s the new shareholders and the old shareholders, excluding theTrust, who have got us to this position.  Fortunately we have TB who is, more than competent, as our big hope to sort the mess out.
    bigoakMark_Jack_Londonjasper_T
  • @jollyboy You are obviously a bit of a zealot, but let’s get the facts right. The shareholders didn’t spend big. The only money that changed hands was between shareholders at the share purchase.

    The made no difference at all to the resources available to the club.

    After the first couple of years, the club spent the Premier League money as it came in  and did so wastefullly, in anticipation that the Premier League money would continue.

    So it’s the new shareholders and the old shareholders, excluding theTrust, who have got us to this position.  Fortunately we have TB who is, more than competent, as our big hope to sort the mess out.
    That’s both technically true, and nonsense. Yes, the shareholders did not put any additional money of their own into buying players in the season we got relegated. (If they had, it would probably have been in the form of a loan and we would be deeper in debt now.) But they did spend every penny they made in sales on getting new players in, when they could have banked that money, made a profit and paid themselves a dividend. (Or even better, banked the money and kept it as a war chest to help us bounce back in the event of relegation.) So JollyBoy is correct IMO
  • @Cadleigh you are entitled to your opinion even when you are factual incorrect. ‘They’ - The Owners spent zero money. So if in your opinion thats ‘big’ then it’s a new definition of ‘big’ in which case this government has been spending ‘big’ since they introduced austerity
    jasper_T
  • @Cadleigh you are entitled to your opinion even when you are factual incorrect. ‘They’ - The Owners spent zero money. So if in your opinion thats ‘big’ then it’s a new definition of ‘big’ in which case this government has been spending ‘big’ since they introduced austerity
    Sorry SJ, you are talking nonsense.

    Swansea City Football Club is a private company. It is owed by its shareholders. They elect a board of directors. The board of directors decide how the shareholders money is invested, with the aim of maximising the shareholders return on their investment, while staying within the law and applicable regulations. The board may delegate some powers to named officials of the club, but ultimately the board are accountable for the decisions those officials make. We may not like the fact that SCFC is not an industrial collective run by worker-directors, or a wholly supporter-owned enterprise like Barcelona, but it isn't. 

    The season we were relegated the board (elected by the shareholders) chose to spend the shareholders money (the income from player sales) on more player purchases (rather than returning the money to the shareholders in dividends). 
  • edited July 8
    @cadleigh ;actually you are talking nonsense. A company is a separate legal person from its shareholders.

    As a result of the company changing hands, no additional money appeared in the company bank accounts.

    The company income isn’t shareholder income. The expenditure of the company isn’t the expenditure of the shareholders.

    The company could have elected to pay dividends to shareholders but that wouldn’t be any additional expenditure by the owners either.

    So you are wrong, and I’m not making this points for any other reason than the statement the owners have spend big is factually incorrect. They have neither spent money nor taken money from the company (to any significant degree).

    So continue to argue if you like, but facts are facts. Opinions in this case are irrelevant.
  • ....by the way the company has no obligation to maximise return to shareholders. A company can have lots of things it is trying to achieve.

    The only difference between a private company and a public company is where and how it’s shares are traded.
  • I buy a plot of land. I build a house on that piece of land. I improve that house, and its value increases. I sell that house to someone else, and the price they pay for it reflects the value I have created. Have they 'invested' in that property or does 'investment' only occur if they run down to Farrow & Ball and touch it up?
  • When the company they own spends on players instead of banking the cash or paying them a dividend, and they spent £60-70m on the shares in the first place, they've absolutely "spent their own money". They had ample opportunity to recoup a majority of their investment.

    Instead of buying a load of overpriced duffers and loaning some more they could have taken that cash out for themselves ahead of our last PL season and hell, the club would have likely been better off for it.
  • @Cadleigh No they haven’t invested in the house, they have bought it.

    In the same way the new owners bought the shares of the company. The fact that the shares were worth less money in the past, doesn’t change the anything.

    If the house that they bought from you goes down in value, have they invested any more or less? No they just own an asset which is worth less than they paid for it.

    Also it’s a poor analogy, as the house isn’t a separate legal person, whereas a company is.
  • edited July 8
    @jasper_T No they haven’t. The company is a separate legal person, it’s not the shareholders income to spend it is the company’s income.

    Yes the company could have decided to pay a dividend instead of buying players, at which time all the shareholders including the trust would have received a dividend.

    In case you hadnt noticed the US owners don’t own 100% of the company, but they couldn’t have paid a dividend unless they had made equivalent profits.

    So it’s still not their money as no dividend was paid.

    We might have been relegated earlier as a result, would we be worse off, that is a matter of opinion, but it’s not a matter of opinion that the US owners spent big. They didn’t, they neither spent nor took money out.

    So @jollyboy @cadleigh and @jasper_T are just wrong.

    You can argue we might have been better off if we hadnt spent some of that money but had instead paid dividends, but then the Trust would have possibly £12m in the bank if the company had paid dividends, and might be able to buy a greater share of the company.

    That is a worthwhile point to discuss and there can be different opinions on that issue.
  • @jasper_T No they haven’t. The company is a separate legal person, it’s not the shareholders income to spend it is the company’s income.

    Yes the company could have decided to pay a dividend instead of buying players, at which time all the shareholders including the trust would have received a dividend.

    In case you hadnt noticed the US owners don’t own 100% of the company, but they couldn’t have paid a dividend unless they had made equivalent profits.

    So it’s still not their money as no dividend was paid.

    We might have been relegated earlier as a result, would we be worse off, that is a matter of opinion, but it’s not a matter of opinion that the US owners spent big. They didn’t, they neither spent nor took money out.

    So @jollyboy @cadleigh and @jasper_T are just wrong.

    You can argue we might have been better off if we hadnt spent some of that money but had instead paid dividends, but then the Trust would have possibly £12m in the bank if the company had paid dividends, and might be able to buy a greater share of the company.

    That is a worthwhile point to discuss and there can be different opinions on that issue.
    “An investor is a person that allocates capital with the expectation of a future financial return.[1] Types of investments include: equitydebt securitiesreal estatecurrencycommoditytoken, derivatives such as put and call optionsfuturesforwards, etc. This definition makes no distinction between the investors in the primary and secondary markets. That is, someone who provides a business with capital and someone who buys a stock are both investors. An investor who owns a stock is a shareholder.” 
  • @cadleigh. Yes you are making my point for me, the transaction that occurred was between shareholders not the company. The company was the asset where ownership was transferred.

    Owners can provide new money via capital, which doesn’t  need to be repaid, but are traded either privately or on a recognised market. 

    The issue is the owners haven’t done this so they haven’t put any money into the company.

    You will notice in your pasted definition of an investor, doesn’t say anywhere that the shareholders own the income of the company and that company expenditure is the owners money that is being spend.....because it isn’t.

    The company is a separate legal person.
  • Seems odd to me to insist that nothing has been spent by the investors.Did cash not leave their bank accounts and go into the accounts of the original owner?.Has the company that the investors own continued to spend from the company's income in order to continue to function as an entity,and does that expenditure continue as we all discuss this?As far as I can see this is the case.
     I am not aware at the moment of any income or dividends  being taken from the club by the investors (unless you believe  some here with conspirancy theories who feel that there must be a 'fiddle' going on somewhere to generate income although they have no evidence for that as far as I can see).

    As far as my simple mind can see they have/are spending however pedantic you wish to be about terms or words.
  • How does money in the old shareholders bank accounts, help the company spend more money. It can’t because it has exactly the same amount of money before the shares were sold as after.

    The company spends its own money, unless the owners put more capital in which they haven’t done. Also they haven’t taken out money, to any significant degree either.

    The new owners have been just allowing the company to continue its normal trading activities, either poorly or well depending on your views. The one thing that is clear is they haven’t invested any money.

    In the simplest view, The hope of the owners of any company is that a company trading well will increase the values of shares so the owners can sell the shares for more than they bought them for. Preferably without the need for them to put in any additional money.
  • edited July 9
    Sorry Jack, I am not happy with the way things have gone or a  supporter of the sale, and condemn the way it was done,but splitting hairs about words doesn't mean to me that the majority investors didn't spend money in buying their shares?They may regret it now and refuse to spend any more of their own cash, but their original spend seems undeniable to me,in the real world that is.
    Whether you regard them using,for example the Siggurdsson  sale income, on other players , as not 'spending' seems to be more' text book speak' than reality.It may have been used  unwisely but the investors didn't one way or another hang on to it.

    Cadleigh
  • @moorlands I haven’t commented on most of the issues you raised. Just clearing up the one error in @jollyboy statement.

    The new owners haven’t put any money into the club/company, all they did was buy shares from other shareholders. I don’t know whose money they used to pay for the shares, presumable the consortium. I haven’t said nor do I believe they have paid for the shares using company income.

    Im surprised it’s even an issue of contention. They haven’t invested any money in the company, they don’t own the income and the expenditure isn’t theirs.

     I presume they are just hoping between GP last year and TB and SC this year, they will get us promoted, so they can sell their shares and turn a little profit.
  • edited July 9
    Splitting hairs Jack if you ask me.
    So the company in which they are major shareholders and for which they have to  authorise expenditure is a separate legal entity, then they cannot be seen to be' spending' , whether it be unsuccessful transfers to attempt to stay in the PL, buying the Stadium lease,or relaying the pitches at the Stadium and Landore.
    It  may not be new money but they are controlling it and authorising it's spending.I agree they are protecting their investment in order to sell on and recover the outlay so it's not out of philanthropy .
  • @moorlands No, very much not splitting hairs. It’s completely different. By the way Shareholders don’t authorise individual expenditure, they will sign off on an overall budget, but the Chair, CEO, Director of Football authorise expenditure.

    They will be involved in key appointments like Manager, chair etc.

    Not sure what your issue is, but unless there was this separation no one would buy shares in companies, as they would be legally responsible for all losses as well. The separation allows shareholders to restrict their losses should the company go completely t*ts up to the amount they have paid for their shares which could fall to zero.

    Look I don’t like the new owners and they have broken all their commitments, but facts are facts, they haven’t put any money into the company, nor have they taken money out, to any substantial degree.

    They are accountable for what has happened as it’s under their ownership, but they aren’t the only ones, the old shareholders and board are equally accountable.

    in my view we have far better stewardship at the club now, with TB and Leon in a Board advisory role. That was a particularly smart appointment by TB before a new HoR is appointed.

    We can’t afford to fall back on wrong answers or we will never solve our problems, so we can’t just blame the Undynamic Duo for the expenditure decisions when we were in the PL, lots of people f*cked up those decisions.
Sign In or Register to comment.