Football betting site Betway

American Investment

2

Comments

  • edited August 7
    If that is the sum of your evidence Gary it is pretty flimsy! Wouldn't want to be your libel lawyer defending you on that evidence!
    Sorry Mark, but I don't get your point.

    I have - quite literally - said I don't have any evidence.

    My point was, neither does anyone else on here either.

    So it is wrong to shut down debate - either way - until solid evidence, either way, comes to light. 
  • Jacktar said:
    Jacktar said:
    Cadleigh said:
    BigOak - are you accusing the shareholders of embezzlement?
    Exactly and Phil Sumbler said it again at the meeting in the Landore club last week, there is no evidence of any money being taken out, the Trust rep sees the monthly management accounts and any missing money would stand out like a sore thumb.
    There are ways of getting a return and that is by paying a dividend to all the shareholders including the Trust but so far, no dividend has been paid for the last 5 years.
    Please stop misrepresenting the Trust's words.

    They have been quite clear - they THINK nothing untoward is going on, but until they get to see the full accounts with no NDA they cannot unequivocally confirm that is the case. 

    Until then, you and the other little Hitlers who want to stop people asking questions need to get back in their box. 

    There will always be suspicion for as long as Kaplan and Levien want to operate without full transparency.
    of course there'll be suspicion, but that doesn't mean anything untoward is going on, was you at the meeting last week? I was.
    Finance, by its very nature has to stay confidential, I'm not siding with Kaplan or Levien but they have asked for the Trust to sign an NDA so that no information is leaked, the Trust have said no, it won't sign so there's an impasse.
    However, I have said my point over and over again that to move money out in a fashion that some are suggesting is embezzlement and whoever does that will spend time in the slammer, your conspiracies are guess work, at best.
    If you have any evidence then why not call in the fraud squad, PL/FA, Inland Revenue or anyone at FFP, they'd be happy to listen.
    Yes I was at the meeting thanks Jacktar, I posted a detailed summary of the key points for everyone on this forum who wasn't able to attend. In case you missed that. So I know exactly what was said, and you are choosing to omit the significant caveat that the Trust have always added when talking about what they can make out from the management accounts. Only you will know why you keep leaving that very crucial caveat off when quoting them. 

    The facts remain:

    - You have no more evidence it isn't going on, than I have evidence to prove that it is.

    - The owners continue to deny the Trust Director access to the full, detailed accounts without signing an NDA first. That behaviour is, if we're being generous, extremely odd. At worst, it is opaque, dishonest and the actions of people who have plenty to hide.

    So, sorry, but I will continue to call it out every single time I see it from you and others because it is a fairly blatant attempt to shut people down who retain a healthy suspicion of what is going on. It is healthy to continue to ask questions of incompetent owners who have ruined the club over the course of their 3 year tenure.
    Yes, I do remember the detailed account and very good it was too, but I also remember you saying the Trust had a very strong case, I have never heard that being said, I might be being pedantic but a strong case is different to a very strong case. Anyway, we'll find out if a litigation funder takes us on, if not, the case could still be strong but not as strong as for someone to back it.

    A 75%+ shareholder can basically do what it likes as long as its law abiding, I have never said I agree with the morals of what they are doing but its their call, if, as you say its dishonest then the Trust should have had them in the court on that one point alone, unfortunately or fortunately, this adds ammunition to the Trusts bigger case and that's possibly why they won't push it.
    If I was making the decision, I'd call their bluff, sign the NDA and get the conspiracists back on track. (or not but leaving it dangle is not doing the football club that I love any favours). 

    By the way, I'm not a little Hitler.
  • SeaJack said:
    In my post I did not and wouldn’t entertain calling it embezzlement as there is nothing to evidence this. What I do question is the headline figure of £30mil that was put out there, (by Pearlman I believe) a debt which has now suddenly increased in sync with the new amount of revenue that has arrived at the club. That is what makes me feel uneasy. Thankfully I am seeing the green shoots of recovery with the off field/on field matters so much so that my feeling is we have a great season ahead. However the uneasiness still gnaws at me a little and the reason for this is down to the club putting out that statement in the first place. It would be a good idea for the fans and the Trust to be put in the picture with regards to this seeming increase in the debt that was suddenly announced in so many words not so long ago.
    I guess you could put it like this. Your mate spends £3k a month on rent, food, and other outgoings. He has a job that brings in £3k a month so that's all fine.

    Then he gets demoted for poor performance. Now he is only earning £1k a month so there's a black hole in his finances.

    He can plug the hole this month by selling his car, and that will reduce his outgoings next month, which will help a bit going forward. But if next month he is still spending the best part of £3k and only bringing in £1k, the problem is still there. Either he increases his earnings or he cuts his spending, or both.

    So Birch is right, we can plug the hole in the short term, but we will not be on a sound financial footing unless we either increase our revenue sharply through gate receipts, sponsorship or (best of all) promotion, or we cut our spending to match our enormously reduced income.

    It's worth remembering that the season we were promoted our entire turnover was not much more than £10m. That's more like what we'll have to live on if the parachute payments run out before we get promoted again, and it's going to be very difficult to continue to fund an academy with that level of income. Particularly if we continue to have gates of £15k.

    So, those who are boycotting the club in order to deprive the owners of income, are arguably making it more imperative that we sell players like Grimes and Roberts if an EPL club comes calling tomorrow. And no doubt if the club does have to close the academy next season, there will be posters saying this is all to put more money into the pockets of the shareholders. Hmm.
  • Hi Cadleigh. Thanks for taking the time to explain how you see it with the examples you’ve given. The way I saw the announcement at the time it was announced, is that the club had to relieve itself of a £30mil debt to balance the books and that it was a forecast that was spread across the whole season. I might be wrong with my assumption but that’s how I saw it and the revenue gained from the transfers have provided a surplus which would mean we have some breathing space until next seasons deficit forecast.
  • Cheers Seajack. I may have missed an announcement along the way, but the only ones I have seen have been
    - Pearlman, in February, saying our revenue was down £60m due to relegation (but we had covered half that through sales)
    - Pearlman, same statement, saying there would be an additional £8m to find in 2019-20 because of the reduction in the transfer fees
    - Birch, this season, saying we are not out of the woods even with the Dan James and Oli McBurnie money

    I agree it's confusing and frustrating and feels like the goalposts keep moving. I also think you may be right - we have done enough to balance the books for this season. But I guess if you are Birch you need to be thinking 'can we afford to recruit players permanently if our income is going to drop by another £19m next season? At what point can I open the checkbook?'
    SeaJack
  • Yes cad I agree you only have to look at Ipswich.theyre a big club and have been selling all their players of any value for the last few seasons just to survive.iff we don’t get promoted in the next 2 seasons I think that’s were we’re heading.it will be very difficult to compete.
  • Relegation from the PL means by the end of year 3 we will have had to find about mid £90m in savings.
  • A scarily big number there SHJ. I wonder how close we are to that number in terms of balancing the books?
  • edited August 7
    Jacktar said:
    Jacktar said:
    Jacktar said:
    Cadleigh said:
    BigOak - are you accusing the shareholders of embezzlement?
    Exactly and Phil Sumbler said it again at the meeting in the Landore club last week, there is no evidence of any money being taken out, the Trust rep sees the monthly management accounts and any missing money would stand out like a sore thumb.
    There are ways of getting a return and that is by paying a dividend to all the shareholders including the Trust but so far, no dividend has been paid for the last 5 years.
    Please stop misrepresenting the Trust's words.

    They have been quite clear - they THINK nothing untoward is going on, but until they get to see the full accounts with no NDA they cannot unequivocally confirm that is the case. 

    Until then, you and the other little Hitlers who want to stop people asking questions need to get back in their box. 

    There will always be suspicion for as long as Kaplan and Levien want to operate without full transparency.
    of course there'll be suspicion, but that doesn't mean anything untoward is going on, was you at the meeting last week? I was.
    Finance, by its very nature has to stay confidential, I'm not siding with Kaplan or Levien but they have asked for the Trust to sign an NDA so that no information is leaked, the Trust have said no, it won't sign so there's an impasse.
    However, I have said my point over and over again that to move money out in a fashion that some are suggesting is embezzlement and whoever does that will spend time in the slammer, your conspiracies are guess work, at best.
    If you have any evidence then why not call in the fraud squad, PL/FA, Inland Revenue or anyone at FFP, they'd be happy to listen.
    Yes I was at the meeting thanks Jacktar, I posted a detailed summary of the key points for everyone on this forum who wasn't able to attend. In case you missed that. So I know exactly what was said, and you are choosing to omit the significant caveat that the Trust have always added when talking about what they can make out from the management accounts. Only you will know why you keep leaving that very crucial caveat off when quoting them. 

    The facts remain:

    - You have no more evidence it isn't going on, than I have evidence to prove that it is.

    - The owners continue to deny the Trust Director access to the full, detailed accounts without signing an NDA first. That behaviour is, if we're being generous, extremely odd. At worst, it is opaque, dishonest and the actions of people who have plenty to hide.

    So, sorry, but I will continue to call it out every single time I see it from you and others because it is a fairly blatant attempt to shut people down who retain a healthy suspicion of what is going on. It is healthy to continue to ask questions of incompetent owners who have ruined the club over the course of their 3 year tenure.
    Yes, I do remember the detailed account and very good it was too, but I also remember you saying the Trust had a very strong case, I have never heard that being said, I might be being pedantic but a strong case is different to a very strong case. Anyway, we'll find out if a litigation funder takes us on, if not, the case could still be strong but not as strong as for someone to back it.

    A 75%+ shareholder can basically do what it likes as long as its law abiding, I have never said I agree with the morals of what they are doing but its their call, if, as you say its dishonest then the Trust should have had them in the court on that one point alone, unfortunately or fortunately, this adds ammunition to the Trusts bigger case and that's possibly why they won't push it.
    If I was making the decision, I'd call their bluff, sign the NDA and get the conspiracists back on track. (or not but leaving it dangle is not doing the football club that I love any favours). 

    By the way, I'm not a little Hitler.
    Jacktar -
    I seem to remember the Trust signing an NDA in relation to the failed deal from the first vote, but apart from that, I believe they have signed no other NDA's. Despite this, as far as I am aware, the Trust has maintained confidentiality on all its integrated dealings and involvement in the club's activities. Consequently the Americans should trust the Trust Board because they have no previous on breaching confidentiality.

    Anyway they don't have that trust so want Stuart and perhaps one other to sign an NDA. 

    So if, as you suggest, they sign an NDA and find something untoward, something not right, something inappropriate , yet perfectly legal. 

    What do they do ? Serious question.

    They can't tell anybody,  so having that knowledge is completely worthless. 

    If the legal case is successful, we may lose our shares and place on the board, thereby losing visibility of even the management accounts, so maybe debating this is all a bit academic now in the light of the vote results
    garythenotrashcougar
  • @SeaJack I know but @martyn is the man who knows where we are with the savings to date
  • Jacktar said:
    Jacktar said:
    Cadleigh said:
    BigOak - are you accusing the shareholders of embezzlement?
    Exactly and Phil Sumbler said it again at the meeting in the Landore club last week, there is no evidence of any money being taken out, the Trust rep sees the monthly management accounts and any missing money would stand out like a sore thumb.
    There are ways of getting a return and that is by paying a dividend to all the shareholders including the Trust but so far, no dividend has been paid for the last 5 years.
    Please stop misrepresenting the Trust's words.

    They have been quite clear - they THINK nothing untoward is going on, but until they get to see the full accounts with no NDA they cannot unequivocally confirm that is the case. 

    Until then, you and the other little Hitlers who want to stop people asking questions need to get back in their box. 

    There will always be suspicion for as long as Kaplan and Levien want to operate without full transparency.
    of course there'll be suspicion, but that doesn't mean anything untoward is going on, was you at the meeting last week? I was.
    Finance, by its very nature has to stay confidential, I'm not siding with Kaplan or Levien but they have asked for the Trust to sign an NDA so that no information is leaked, the Trust have said no, it won't sign so there's an impasse.
    However, I have said my point over and over again that to move money out in a fashion that some are suggesting is embezzlement and whoever does that will spend time in the slammer, your conspiracies are guess work, at best.
    If you have any evidence then why not call in the fraud squad, PL/FA, Inland Revenue or anyone at FFP, they'd be happy to listen.
    Yes I was at the meeting thanks Jacktar, I posted a detailed summary of the key points for everyone on this forum who wasn't able to attend. In case you missed that. So I know exactly what was said, and you are choosing to omit the significant caveat that the Trust have always added when talking about what they can make out from the management accounts. Only you will know why you keep leaving that very crucial caveat off when quoting them. 

    The facts remain:

    - You have no more evidence it isn't going on, than I have evidence to prove that it is.

    - The owners continue to deny the Trust Director access to the full, detailed accounts without signing an NDA first. That behaviour is, if we're being generous, extremely odd. At worst, it is opaque, dishonest and the actions of people who have plenty to hide.

    So, sorry, but I will continue to call it out every single time I see it from you and others because it is a fairly blatant attempt to shut people down who retain a healthy suspicion of what is going on. It is healthy to continue to ask questions of incompetent owners who have ruined the club over the course of their 3 year tenure.
    I love you last line about asking questions of incompetent owners,which is absolutely your right !!

    However I have a couple of questions for you:

    1. What constitutes a competent owner?
    2. I don't know how long you have followed the Swans but how many competent owners have we had since you became a fan?
  • Neil McClure was a competent  owner he made me 5 grand when we became ninth floor! Cheers neil,chin chin.
  • Jacktar said:
    Jacktar said:
    Cadleigh said:
    BigOak - are you accusing the shareholders of embezzlement?
    Exactly and Phil Sumbler said it again at the meeting in the Landore club last week, there is no evidence of any money being taken out, the Trust rep sees the monthly management accounts and any missing money would stand out like a sore thumb.
    There are ways of getting a return and that is by paying a dividend to all the shareholders including the Trust but so far, no dividend has been paid for the last 5 years.
    Please stop misrepresenting the Trust's words.

    They have been quite clear - they THINK nothing untoward is going on, but until they get to see the full accounts with no NDA they cannot unequivocally confirm that is the case. 

    Until then, you and the other little Hitlers who want to stop people asking questions need to get back in their box. 

    There will always be suspicion for as long as Kaplan and Levien want to operate without full transparency.
    of course there'll be suspicion, but that doesn't mean anything untoward is going on, was you at the meeting last week? I was.
    Finance, by its very nature has to stay confidential, I'm not siding with Kaplan or Levien but they have asked for the Trust to sign an NDA so that no information is leaked, the Trust have said no, it won't sign so there's an impasse.
    However, I have said my point over and over again that to move money out in a fashion that some are suggesting is embezzlement and whoever does that will spend time in the slammer, your conspiracies are guess work, at best.
    If you have any evidence then why not call in the fraud squad, PL/FA, Inland Revenue or anyone at FFP, they'd be happy to listen.
    Yes I was at the meeting thanks Jacktar, I posted a detailed summary of the key points for everyone on this forum who wasn't able to attend. In case you missed that. So I know exactly what was said, and you are choosing to omit the significant caveat that the Trust have always added when talking about what they can make out from the management accounts. Only you will know why you keep leaving that very crucial caveat off when quoting them. 

    The facts remain:

    - You have no more evidence it isn't going on, than I have evidence to prove that it is.

    - The owners continue to deny the Trust Director access to the full, detailed accounts without signing an NDA first. That behaviour is, if we're being generous, extremely odd. At worst, it is opaque, dishonest and the actions of people who have plenty to hide.

    So, sorry, but I will continue to call it out every single time I see it from you and others because it is a fairly blatant attempt to shut people down who retain a healthy suspicion of what is going on. It is healthy to continue to ask questions of incompetent owners who have ruined the club over the course of their 3 year tenure.
    I love you last line about asking questions of incompetent owners,which is absolutely your right !!

    However I have a couple of questions for you:

    1. What constitutes a competent owner?
    2. I don't know how long you have followed the Swans but how many competent owners have we had since you became a fan?
    1. We'll all have our own views on that but I know one thing - it isn't how I'd describe the current bunch of cowboys.

    2. I've been following us since 1990. I thought Doug Sharpe, tight **** that he was, did ok at a time when our crowds were only about 3,000. Least said about the next couple of owners the better. Jenkins and co - I've done that to death before now, but between 2002 and 2013 it's hard to fault much of what they did. Shame what happened between then and 2016 though. Then you've got this lot, a waste of time really.  
  • Brownie said:
    Neil McClure was a competent  owner he made me 5 grand when we became ninth floor! Cheers neil,chin chin.
    I'm glad you made some dosh but his competence must be called in to question as didn't he sell to Mike Lewis?

    Although that being said I enjoyed the Silvershield / Ninthfloor years with players like Walter Boyd & Giovanni Savarese, Matt Bound, Jason Smith and of course Roger Freestone. Jan Molby and the agonising playoff final defeat and wining the 3rd Division title at Rotherham.

    But selling to Mike Lewis!!
  • SeaJack said:
    A scarily big number there SHJ. I wonder how close we are to that number in terms of balancing the books?
    I think it is actually worse than SHJ suggested. In 2017-18 Millwall had income of £15m, Brentford £20m (£8m of that came from profit on player transfers). We might do a shade better than Millwall because they were in their first season in the Championship, whereas we have been able to negotiate commercial deals in the EPL, but it's not a bad benchmark. Therefore we are looking at a total reduction in income (and therefore costs) of over £100m over three years if we don't get promoted.

    It is possible to survive, and even thrive, on that level of income - after all, we managed it previously. But to do that you need to make profits on player sales every season, and avoid unaffordable debt.

    In other news, Andre Ayew is returning to the club, having been given extra time off to recover from the ACON according to Wales Online. So he wasn't on some sort of strike after all.
  • Looks like we’ve got options coming out of our ears at the moment what with Andre Ayew returning as well. At least he’s fit to play unlike Bony wasn’t last season.
  • Cadleigh said:
    SeaJack said:
    In my post I did not and wouldn’t entertain calling it embezzlement as there is nothing to evidence this. What I do question is the headline figure of £30mil that was put out there, (by Pearlman I believe) a debt which has now suddenly increased in sync with the new amount of revenue that has arrived at the club. That is what makes me feel uneasy. Thankfully I am seeing the green shoots of recovery with the off field/on field matters so much so that my feeling is we have a great season ahead. However the uneasiness still gnaws at me a little and the reason for this is down to the club putting out that statement in the first place. It would be a good idea for the fans and the Trust to be put in the picture with regards to this seeming increase in the debt that was suddenly announced in so many words not so long ago.
    I guess you could put it like this. Your mate spends £3k a month on rent, food, and other outgoings. He has a job that brings in £3k a month so that's all fine.

    Then he gets demoted for poor performance. Now he is only earning £1k a month so there's a black hole in his finances.

    He can plug the hole this month by selling his car, and that will reduce his outgoings next month, which will help a bit going forward. But if next month he is still spending the best part of £3k and only bringing in £1k, the problem is still there. Either he increases his earnings or he cuts his spending, or both.

    So Birch is right, we can plug the hole in the short term, but we will not be on a sound financial footing unless we either increase our revenue sharply through gate receipts, sponsorship or (best of all) promotion, or we cut our spending to match our enormously reduced income.

    It's worth remembering that the season we were promoted our entire turnover was not much more than £10m. That's more like what we'll have to live on if the parachute payments run out before we get promoted again, and it's going to be very difficult to continue to fund an academy with that level of income. Particularly if we continue to have gates of £15k.

    So, those who are boycotting the club in order to deprive the owners of income, are arguably making it more imperative that we sell players like Grimes and Roberts if an EPL club comes calling tomorrow. And no doubt if the club does have to close the academy next season, there will be posters saying this is all to put more money into the pockets of the shareholders. Hmm.
    Good analogy, and even though we’ve sold a few cars, we still have one that’s haemorrhaging us £5m a year, and it’s easier said than done to sell it or even give it away.

  • SeaJack said:
    Looks like we’ve got options coming out of our ears at the moment what with Andre Ayew returning as well. At least he’s fit to play unlike Bony wasn’t last season.
    Can’t see AA being anywhere near the first team, he’ll upset the Apple cart
  • Perhaps we could sell the apple cart? {~:
  • Jacktar said:
    Jacktar said:
    Jacktar said:
    Cadleigh said:
    BigOak - are you accusing the shareholders of embezzlement?
    Exactly and Phil Sumbler said it again at the meeting in the Landore club last week, there is no evidence of any money being taken out, the Trust rep sees the monthly management accounts and any missing money would stand out like a sore thumb.
    There are ways of getting a return and that is by paying a dividend to all the shareholders including the Trust but so far, no dividend has been paid for the last 5 years.
    Please stop misrepresenting the Trust's words.

    They have been quite clear - they THINK nothing untoward is going on, but until they get to see the full accounts with no NDA they cannot unequivocally confirm that is the case. 

    Until then, you and the other little Hitlers who want to stop people asking questions need to get back in their box. 

    There will always be suspicion for as long as Kaplan and Levien want to operate without full transparency.
    of course there'll be suspicion, but that doesn't mean anything untoward is going on, was you at the meeting last week? I was.
    Finance, by its very nature has to stay confidential, I'm not siding with Kaplan or Levien but they have asked for the Trust to sign an NDA so that no information is leaked, the Trust have said no, it won't sign so there's an impasse.
    However, I have said my point over and over again that to move money out in a fashion that some are suggesting is embezzlement and whoever does that will spend time in the slammer, your conspiracies are guess work, at best.
    If you have any evidence then why not call in the fraud squad, PL/FA, Inland Revenue or anyone at FFP, they'd be happy to listen.
    Yes I was at the meeting thanks Jacktar, I posted a detailed summary of the key points for everyone on this forum who wasn't able to attend. In case you missed that. So I know exactly what was said, and you are choosing to omit the significant caveat that the Trust have always added when talking about what they can make out from the management accounts. Only you will know why you keep leaving that very crucial caveat off when quoting them. 

    The facts remain:

    - You have no more evidence it isn't going on, than I have evidence to prove that it is.

    - The owners continue to deny the Trust Director access to the full, detailed accounts without signing an NDA first. That behaviour is, if we're being generous, extremely odd. At worst, it is opaque, dishonest and the actions of people who have plenty to hide.

    So, sorry, but I will continue to call it out every single time I see it from you and others because it is a fairly blatant attempt to shut people down who retain a healthy suspicion of what is going on. It is healthy to continue to ask questions of incompetent owners who have ruined the club over the course of their 3 year tenure.
    Yes, I do remember the detailed account and very good it was too, but I also remember you saying the Trust had a very strong case, I have never heard that being said, I might be being pedantic but a strong case is different to a very strong case. Anyway, we'll find out if a litigation funder takes us on, if not, the case could still be strong but not as strong as for someone to back it.

    A 75%+ shareholder can basically do what it likes as long as its law abiding, I have never said I agree with the morals of what they are doing but its their call, if, as you say its dishonest then the Trust should have had them in the court on that one point alone, unfortunately or fortunately, this adds ammunition to the Trusts bigger case and that's possibly why they won't push it.
    If I was making the decision, I'd call their bluff, sign the NDA and get the conspiracists back on track. (or not but leaving it dangle is not doing the football club that I love any favours). 

    By the way, I'm not a little Hitler.
    Jacktar -
    I seem to remember the Trust signing an NDA in relation to the failed deal from the first vote, but apart from that, I believe they have signed no other NDA's. Despite this, as far as I am aware, the Trust has maintained confidentiality on all its integrated dealings and involvement in the club's activities. Consequently the Americans should trust the Trust Board because they have no previous on breaching confidentiality.

    Anyway they don't have that trust so want Stuart and perhaps one other to sign an NDA. 

    So if, as you suggest, they sign an NDA and find something untoward, something not right, something inappropriate , yet perfectly legal. 

    What do they do ? Serious question.

    They can't tell anybody,  so having that knowledge is completely worthless. 

    If the legal case is successful, we may lose our shares and place on the board, thereby losing visibility of even the management accounts, so maybe debating this is all a bit academic now in the light of the vote results
    If its perfectly legal, they can do it with or without the Trust's blessing, if its not, they can't and that's why I will always counter when people say things without any knowledge or back up, the misconception over us paying Wayne Rooney has done the rounds for months but if it were to be remotely true then someone would be doing time. Its the same with shifting money from one company to another, it just can't happen.
    Why would the Americans risk it with the chance of a stretch inside? the simple thing for them to do would be to announce a dividend, this is perfectly legal and there's nothing a 21% shareholder can do about it other than take its share (as the Trust has done previously).
  • edited August 8
    Cadleigh said:
    SeaJack said:
    In my post I did not and wouldn’t entertain calling it embezzlement as there is nothing to evidence this. What I do question is the headline figure of £30mil that was put out there, (by Pearlman I believe) a debt which has now suddenly increased in sync with the new amount of revenue that has arrived at the club. That is what makes me feel uneasy. Thankfully I am seeing the green shoots of recovery with the off field/on field matters so much so that my feeling is we have a great season ahead. However the uneasiness still gnaws at me a little and the reason for this is down to the club putting out that statement in the first place. It would be a good idea for the fans and the Trust to be put in the picture with regards to this seeming increase in the debt that was suddenly announced in so many words not so long ago.
    I guess you could put it like this. Your mate spends £3k a month on rent, food, and other outgoings. He has a job that brings in £3k a month so that's all fine.

    Then he gets demoted for poor performance. Now he is only earning £1k a month so there's a black hole in his finances.

    He can plug the hole this month by selling his car, and that will reduce his outgoings next month, which will help a bit going forward. But if next month he is still spending the best part of £3k and only bringing in £1k, the problem is still there. Either he increases his earnings or he cuts his spending, or both.

    So Birch is right, we can plug the hole in the short term, but we will not be on a sound financial footing unless we either increase our revenue sharply through gate receipts, sponsorship or (best of all) promotion, or we cut our spending to match our enormously reduced income.

    It's worth remembering that the season we were promoted our entire turnover was not much more than £10m. That's more like what we'll have to live on if the parachute payments run out before we get promoted again, and it's going to be very difficult to continue to fund an academy with that level of income. Particularly if we continue to have gates of £15k.

    So, those who are boycotting the club in order to deprive the owners of income, are arguably making it more imperative that we sell players like Grimes and Roberts if an EPL club comes calling tomorrow. And no doubt if the club does have to close the academy next season, there will be posters saying this is all to put more money into the pockets of the shareholders. Hmm.
    Once again, just to remind everyone:

    Despite the fag packet mathematicians that reside on this site, our owners are billionaires.

    They choose to impose unnecessary financial restrictions on the club, justifying their actions by being dishonest, opaque and moving goalposts when it suits them.

    That is their right to do so. They own the club. 

    But it doesn't make it right, and our fans just bending over and taking it isn't going to make them go away.

    Many will carry on attending games, buying the club shop tat, wave their rattles and pretend it isn't happening.

    Thankfully - as the reduction in season tickets shows - an increasing number aren't falling for it. Good on them. 
  • So let me get this straight...

    When Jenkins et al owned the club you were happy that we lived within our means and did not go into debt, you attended matches and did not protest

    If the Trust bought the club tomorrow, you would be happy that we live within our means and do not go into debt, you would attend matches and not protest

    If the club was sold to a local supporter with limited means, you be happy that we live within our means and so not go into debt, you would attend matches and not protest

    But because the club is owned by 30-odd shareholders, a number of whom are independently wealthy, you are unhappy that we are not getting money from the magic tree so you are boycotting games?
  • Jacktar said:

    If its perfectly legal, they can do it with or without the Trust's blessing, if its not, they can't and that's why I will always counter when people say things without any knowledge or back up, the misconception over us paying Wayne Rooney has done the rounds for months but if it were to be remotely true then someone would be doing time. Its the same with shifting money from one company to another, it just can't happen.
    Why would the Americans risk it with the chance of a stretch inside? the simple thing for them to do would be to announce a dividend, this is perfectly legal and there's nothing a 21% shareholder can do about it other than take its share (as the Trust has done previously).
    Thanks Jacktar but you haven't really answered my question as to what Stuart should do. I actually agree with everything you've written there but you refer to illegal acts and I'm not - I'm referring to legal acts - but acts that Stuart feels are "not right" and about which the Trust Board or indeed members should know about. If Stuart finds something legal but inappropriate then he is in an impossible position if he's previously signed an NDA so he can't share it. It can't be right that we put anybody in that position and I fully agree with the Trust Board's stance on this.

    I can't see us ever getting any further detailed information anyway. 
    garythenotrashcougar
  • I am more going to believe Trust Board members Stuart and London Lisa (co-opted) who are trained accountants who know what to look for if money is being taken out of the club, then anyone who is speculating with no evidence.

    they see the management accounts every month, so will see what money is coming in and out of the club.

    Until they say there is something iffy going on, then I am going to believe they are not syphoning cash from the club.

    That's not to say they have not poorly managed the club - most of which has been around transfer policy of buying high, overpriced, and selling mostly too low, costing the club too much cash and our downfall as result. 

    Thank god we have someone experienced in these kinds of rescues looking after stuff right now.
  • I don't think some on here get it, they have 79% of the shares but a 100% run of the club.
    Forget share dividends, they cant take because under company rules there has to be a profit.
    Look up how Hedge funders work, all over the World they make everyone sign non disclosure, its not because what they do is illegal but would show the customers and fans how they get their money.
    Its something the Government were seriously concerned about, obviously that will lessen now that Rees Mogg is the leader of the house, who has made 103M in 3 years yet nearly all the trading companies show a loss.
    Their rules state they can take 20% of an asset value, plus  if they want an additional 5%.
    So Oli McBurnie gets sold for 20M in 4x 5M instalments,   they can quite legitimately borrow 20M take 20% i.e 4M then allow the instalments to be paid by the buying club, in a 3 year period seeing the club lose over 4M after interest.
    This is no conspiracy theory, this is what they do and are experts at it.
     If we had no players worth anything but managed to break even on wages etc, they wouldn't be here.
    The land they bought is an asset, even though its no good at all for the club, they have a potential use for it, whether to lease out or borrow against its asset value.
    Never ever confuse these type of owners with run of the mill Ltd companies, they are miles apart.
    People somehow think that selling players balance the books, under normal company rules this would apply.
    Yes some companies borrow against sales but normally to reinvest that money in other players, this is not the case with us,  If anyone honestly believes they have been here for 4 years, paid out old Hugh and made nothing would have to be in a fantasy World, No Hedge funders have ever lost money, the companies they are involved in always do
  • Phillip - the group that owns 70% of the club are a consortium of investors, they are not a hedge fund.

    You are correct that they control >75% of votes on the board because the former shareholders gave away their remaining voting rights when they sold the bulk of their shares. That was a major blow to the Trust - perhaps the biggest blow of all - but I am sure the sale would not have gone through if they hadn't agreed. If I had £70m to invest in an overseas company I sure as hell wouldn't part with my money knowing that a bunch of locals who I don't know and who have a track record of blocking things they don't like had a veto on anything critical...

    But that doesn't mean Jenkins, Morgan et al aren't still shareholders, votes or no. As is Birch. So for your theory to be correct Birch and the others would have to be too stupid to realise that the consortium are taking boxes full of gold out the back door of the stadium, or so corrupt they are prepared to collude with it.

    Occam's Razor says it's what it looks like - they are going to make their money in the long term, not through short cuts.
  • Cadleigh said:
    Phillip - the group that owns 70% of the club are a consortium of investors, they are not a hedge fund.

    You are correct that they control >75% of votes on the board because the former shareholders gave away their remaining voting rights when they sold the bulk of their shares. That was a major blow to the Trust - perhaps the biggest blow of all - but I am sure the sale would not have gone through if they hadn't agreed. If I had £70m to invest in an overseas company I sure as hell wouldn't part with my money knowing that a bunch of locals who I don't know and who have a track record of blocking things they don't like had a veto on anything critical...

    But that doesn't mean Jenkins, Morgan et al aren't still shareholders, votes or no. As is Birch. So for your theory to be correct Birch and the others would have to be too stupid to realise that the consortium are taking boxes full of gold out the back door of the stadium, or so corrupt they are prepared to collude with it.

    Occam's Razor says it's what it looks like - they are going to make their money in the long term, not through short cuts.
    Obviously I don't see it that way as the consortium of investors as you like to call them are fronted by Hedge Funders.
    Simple question if anyone can answer me.
    Kaplan and Leviene buy the shares off Jenkins and co for X millions, no one actually knows how much, so X million goes to them.
    We are then told that 28 further Swansea City investors paid in 1M each, where did that 28M go?
    I see no income from investors on any of the books
    Or did they invest in Kaplan etc companies, we certainly haven't seen 28M.
    Long term sustainable payback is not the way these guys have worked in the past, its always short term payback profit at the expense of the trading company.
    If there are no immediate profits for these type of people, they simply don't get involved.
    When they increased the wages from 2016-2018 they took on an extra 140 staff, none of which even topped 20K a year, most part time, however it looked good explaining why it went up 30M
    I would love to be proved wrong but fear that even the slightest hint of success will be seen as more dollars made
  • I am more going to believe Trust Board members Stuart and London Lisa (co-opted) who are trained accountants who know what to look for if money is being taken out of the club, then anyone who is speculating with no evidence.

    they see the management accounts every month, so will see what money is coming in and out of the club.

    Until they say there is something iffy going on, then I am going to believe they are not syphoning cash from the club.

    That's not to say they have not poorly managed the club - most of which has been around transfer policy of buying high, overpriced, and selling mostly too low, costing the club too much cash and our downfall as result. 

    Thank god we have someone experienced in these kinds of rescues looking after stuff right now.
    I don't know about Lisa, but Stuart was unequivocal the last time he spoke about this issue, and he said that while the management accounts make him think nothing untoward is going on, he could not categorically say there was nothing untoward going on until he got access to the full books, which we all know he will not see without signing that ridiculous NDA (which he quite rightly refuses to do).

    So once again, you're trusting in what - the words of a man who couldn't possibly be 100% sure on this himself?
  • Jacktar said:

    If its perfectly legal, they can do it with or without the Trust's blessing, if its not, they can't and that's why I will always counter when people say things without any knowledge or back up, the misconception over us paying Wayne Rooney has done the rounds for months but if it were to be remotely true then someone would be doing time. Its the same with shifting money from one company to another, it just can't happen.
    Why would the Americans risk it with the chance of a stretch inside? the simple thing for them to do would be to announce a dividend, this is perfectly legal and there's nothing a 21% shareholder can do about it other than take its share (as the Trust has done previously).
    Thanks Jacktar but you haven't really answered my question as to what Stuart should do. I actually agree with everything you've written there but you refer to illegal acts and I'm not - I'm referring to legal acts - but acts that Stuart feels are "not right" and about which the Trust Board or indeed members should know about. If Stuart finds something legal but inappropriate then he is in an impossible position if he's previously signed an NDA so he can't share it. It can't be right that we put anybody in that position and I fully agree with the Trust Board's stance on this.

    I can't see us ever getting any further detailed information anyway. 
    Absolutely bang on Jeff. The poor man would be lynched if he signed it, found there was naughty business going on, and he had to keep schtum. It's an impossible, unreasonable position for him to be placed in.
Sign In or Register to comment.