Home Swansea City

Clubs a joke

Gutted for the fans who bought season tickets ,cooper scarpered cos the writing was on the wall !... feel sorry for the new guy RM ,and thanks to the previous owners for selling our club to these venture capitalist vultures ?started going down the vetch when I was about 12 yrs old we didn't have no money but we'd find a way in!.. best day of my life as a fan promotion at Wembley since those heady days the wheels have certainly come off our only hope I think is if a consortium comes in and buys these parasites out ?... they've never lived it ,they're only here to suck the life out of us ,if they weren't lining their pockets they wouldn't be here end of Rant



  • fags and weed glue and speed but I draws the line at crack 🙄

  • Definitely feel your frustration as the Americans have literally sold the silver and are never going to invest their own money

    - but we are not a big club and to avoid penalties in the EFL whoever owned us would have had to do the same. There was no way a club our size even with parachute payments could sustain a squad on Premier league wages. It was inevitable this would happen.

    The pinch point though is the fact that in January we were in a great position to gain automatic promotion and the owners did not back Cooper to give hhim a single striker- unbelievable and unforgivable. Must be a key reason why he left, that and he knew our other star players would be sold this summer.

    Cooper was right in all these areas except that in this window the owners have actually reinvested the fees received, which he probably didnt think would happen.

    In fact I would argue we have probably spent more in this window than we received which must be a first for a number of years. Actually we might have a net spend that many other championship clubs don't have from this summer.

    It was also a telling sign of change that we didn't sell Grimes even though Fulhams valuation was only slightly short. This shows an element of ambition finally from the owners.

  • I don’t think I’ve ever felt so despondent about the Club in the past twenty years and I see no improvement or return of ambition for promotion under the present ownership.

    Totally agree with Francois’ sentiments but suggest this thread should be called ‘Owners are a Joke’ and not the club’s a joke.

  • The owners have consistently 'reinvested' profits from player sales into the squad, except when needed to balance the wage bill due to declining EPL TV money. In fact they haven't taken a penny out of the club (unless you subscribe to one of the alternative realities occasionally promoted on here).

    Some of us argued that we'd have been better off NOT spending the £18 million summer transfer surplus on Ayew in our last Christmas in the Premier League, but banked it for the relegation that looked inevitable at that point. Imagine what a difference that could have made - we could have kept Fabianski and Fernandez and still had £5 million to spend on balancing the wage bill.

    Of course that was not an option for our owners, as the supporters would have turned on them with a vengeance. Contrast that with Norwich, who spent less than £8m on new players when they got promoted to the Premier League (and inevitably went straight back down). Their supporters understand the importance of living within your means and the damage that debt can do.

    And when you say 'the Americans are never going to invest their own money', what about Silverstein's £5 million contribution to our finances?

  • edited September 2021

    Its a Loan. When someone such as a bank for example, lends you money, its not an investment as they expect it back, generally with interest.

  • Ah right, so the only form that ‘investment’ takes is when free money from the magic money tree is given to the club to buy players then? On that basis the number of clubs that have owners that ‘invest’ is vanishingly small and I wonder what it is that makes our supporters think we have a God-given right to one.

    Delia and her husband loaned a quarter of a million to Norwich when they were on the brink. They expected it back at some point. Was that investment or not?

  • edited September 2021

    Still amazed at how many people appear to have Stockholm Syndrome about our owners.

    "He may have beaten me senseless....but he could have killed me, so, every cloud and all that....."

    Said it before - are they the very worst owners in the Football League? No.

    Are they down there amongst the worst? Yep.

    They are not here for the benefit of anyone else but themselves. They bought a Premier League club seeing £ signs in front of their eyes, tanked it due to their own rank incompetence, then got bored with their shiny new toy when the £ signs weren't there anymore. We're all still paying the price, as the summer management shambles proved.

    Sooner they are gone, the better.

  • edited September 2021

    Investment is what it says on the Tin, your investment is in the product. A loan has conditions and normally is paid back in some way!

    The owners have never invested , they have always taken back what they have put in plus interest. They have never investeed thier own money . ,they bought the shares . THINK ABOUT IT

  • Cadleigh,

    the one nit I will pick from the above is that Norwich have owners who have provided stability at Carrow Road as well as investment, and the experience / lessons learned from previous PL relegation seasons. Mind you the £23m they had for Maddison in summer 2018 is certainly way above the amount of cash that we had from our 'firesale' in summer 2018.

  • edited September 2021


    forgot to add this link in my previous post

    Connor Southwell: City's stability comes from the top | The Pink Un

  • Sad to say it but the majority of Swans supporters I've spoken to or messaged think the club are now in dire straits as a result of this transfer window....

  • Good article, Colin. This is a good read too: https://www.ft.com/content/2334c941-a1ab-48ce-b4fd-6747710c8054

    There's a lot we can learn from them, and from Southampton.

  • What on earth are you talking about? Almost all 'investment' in our economy is in the form of share purchases. That is literally what investor relations is all about - managing relations with shareholders. Or you can choose to invest in property, or a racehorse. Either way you buy THE THING. You don't take responsibility for feeding the bloody horse, that's what the executive management is there for. In football investment in a club means buying it. It is then for the management to work out how best to fund the ongoing purchase of players, paying wages etc.

    I don't think our owners are great (Mindy apart) and would happily see new ones come in, but it is a fact that they have never taken a penny in dividends (unlike the Trust!!!) or other fees as far we can see. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't make it true.

  • Sounds like the age old discussion about the profit motive, against ' lets all be friends and share everything.'

    Get real.

    Of course the Owners bought the Club with a view to making money.That's the model for most of the world in which we live.Where to you think the miserly interest we mere mortals can get from the Building Societythese days comes from,it's profit made on investments, and we are all part of this world.

    To expect anyone owning this Club, or any other business, to do it for nothing is sadly delusional.

    Unless you are owned by a Middle Eastern entity, which is prepared to use the club as a hobby, then running the Club from income/sales rather than their own pockets is probably ticking most of the boxes in the Business Courses running in every Business School.

    We had a 'Community Club' for a while when the local Consortium took the Club on.Eventually, as we know this also foundered when, as it usually does, human nature took over.

    It's good to vent about it, but I think the situation is sadly unlikely to drastically change for the better with other owners.

  • @bigoak I have thought about it and you are wrong on every level with that response

    Firstly what do you mean by investment is what it says on the tin !!

    The actual definition of investment is "the action or process of investing money for profit" and to invest means lay out (money time or effort) for profit or advantage.

    Therefore a loan is an investment and the interest is the profit is it not?

    Therefore buying shares is an investment is it not?

    I think it's fair to say our owners have invested and they have a right to a return.

    Have they invested in the way many supporters would like, well the answer is no if you expect someone to turn up and just hand over cash with no obvious return (because in the real world that happens all the time) on that investment.

    I have a different question for you, are we currently a well-run club?

  • No it was a loan, it becomes an investment when changed into shares or written off.

    I have no problem with people investing to make money, but you have to be competent and plan from the start to be in it for the long term to be an investor, otherwise you are just a trader, which is completely different.

    Football is the classic answer to how do you make a small fortune. Start with a big one and invest in a football club.

    So no, under any criteria, is a loan an investment, it's borrowing.

  • A good analogy.

    Stop feeding the horse and see how well your investment does!

  • edited September 2021

    To be fair, they will not spend more than is generated and for that, I thank them. We've all seen the basket case clubs, and clubs that sail very close to the wind.

    There's no queue to buy our club, and even if there was, what makes people think they will bankroll us.

    We are in a decent position, we have little debt and it looks like our philosophy is returning, just needs a little patience.

  • edited September 2021

    A loan can be an investment hence the term investment loan.

    Now if you borrow say 800K to buy Jamal Lowe and sell him for £1.5m then that loan was an investment that worked (assuming the interest rate is reasonable and you don't pay more than 700K interest 😉).

  • The phrase Investment Loan is one the banks use to make a loan seem more acceptable to the unknowing punter. Classically used for buying property.

    Its still just a loan, probably with some guarantees required.

    Ask the bank to borrow to buy a footballer and they would laugh as they show you the door.

    They will lend you money, what you do with it is up to you, but you are still on the hook for the loan and interest and you will probably need to put up personal collateral to guarantee a loan.

    Compare that to an investment where an individual or group buys shares. They get no guarantees and their money is at risk, That's why they want seats on the Board to influence decisions.

    Two completely different things.

  • I have shares in a utility company. I don't expect them to ask me for money every time they want to lay a new pipe or open a new office, that's what the executive team are paid to do, under the supervision of the Board.

    However, the most important thing is that you agree with me and disagree with BigOak, the owners HAVE invested in the club, by buying shares. Glad we sorted that one out!

  • Wouldn’t read to much into it, nobody knows what agreements were put in place to sign the new manager. I doubt he signed without putting some terms in place and refused to be in same boat as SC, let’s face it nobody else was rushing for the job.

  • edited September 2021

    I know some people find this very confusing, clearly you are one of them.

    The investor term applies to the person making the investment, which is completely different from who gets the money.

    The US owners invested in the shares of the company, not the club, and all the money flowed to the owners of those shares. the existing shareholders, and not to the club.

    US Owners spent £70m, which all went to previous shareholders who gained £70m. The Club received £0 from the transaction.

    If the US owners sell their shares for £140m they get £140m, the new shareholders spend £140m. The Club would receive £0.

    If the US Owners sell their shares for £35m they get £35m, the new shareholders spend £35m. The Club would receive £0.

    The only time, the company and hence the Club receives money from the sale of shares is the very first time they are issued(sold), every other transaction is between the shareholders with the share being the property invested in.

    A rights issue (ie. new additional shares) if arranged, as new shares then the funds would go the Club. The only difference is that the existing shareholders have the right (hence the term rights issue) to buy these new shares before they can be offered to someone else.

    So your interpretation of this issue is just wrong, the US owners have not invested in the Club, all they have done is paid the previous set of shareholders £70m and the Club got £0.

    To get money in the club they can:

    1. Get the Company/Club to organise a rights issue (new shares) so when they are sold the Company /Club gets the money - An Investment in shares but because they are new the Club get the money, not repayable
    2. Write off any loans they have given to the Company/Club - A gift, not repayable.
    3. Loan money to the Company/Club - A loan, repayable with interest.

    I hope that clears up this issue once and for all.

    @bigoak is correct on this one. Buying shares from previous owners is not an investment in the Club.

  • Sorry, you are just using semantics here to try to win an arguement you have already lost (not for the first time either - are you an English teacher by any chance?). The Company owns the Club, that's all they do - in practical terms they are one and the same thing. It's not like a giant corporation with multiple profit centres, all acting autonomously. What you are saying is that none of the money that the new shareholders gave to the old shareholders went into the operating budget. That's correct. But they still invested in Swansea City Football Club, no matter how you try to suggest otherwise.

  • Its not semantics, its reality.

    Who got the money, the previous shareholders, the club got £0.

    No the money from the new shareholders did not go into the operating budget of the club, it went into the pockets of the previous shareholders.

    No they havent invested any money into Swansea City Football Club.

    The just own the shares and gave the previous owners £70m for the privilege. The Club got £0.

    Using your logic if they sell their shares for £35m somehow the Club would lose money as a result. No they wouldnt the Club would be untouched by the transaction between the shareholders.

    The Club would still get £0 and it would cost them £0.

  • You agree that buying shares is investment?

    You agree that Swansea City Football Club is a football club?

    You agree that they bought shares in Swansea City Association Football Club Ltd?

    Ergo, they invested in the club.

    I never said the money went to the manager, or the sporting director, or the person who makes the pies, I just said they invested in the club. Which clearly they did. 'The company' and 'the club' are not two different things. You are talking about 'capital' and 'revenue', which is clearly another matter altogether.

  • No. Shares are separate property which have a secondary market to trade in. The simplest analogy is:

    1. You buy a Ford car from new. You pay Ford they get the money.
    2. You sell your Ford car as secondhand car, Fred Bloggs buys the car from you. You get the money. Ford do not get any money.

    The US owners own a class of property called shares, which allows them control of the company but none of the money has gone near the club.

    You can pretend as much as you like it doesnt change the reality.

    I suggest you do some research into the 'veil of incorporation' rather that just flogging a dead horse.

    If anyone is playing sematics its you. The discussions have been have the owners invested any money in the club. the answer is No. A clear No, not an issue for debate.

  • So since these owners bought the "shares" are you saying that have put £0 into the club?

    Even if they provided a loan with a guaranteed return for them is that not an investment?

    Remember the definition of investment is "the action or process of investing money for profit" and to invest is "to put money in with an expectation of a profit"

    It does not matter if that money is a loan (as per Jake Silverstien, which by the way the owners matched) it's still an investment.

    @bigoak is wrong and @Cadleigh is correct (IMO)

  • edited September 2021


    Yes, they have put exactly £0 into the club, as they bought the shares not from the Club but from the previous shareholders. The shareholders and the Club are different legal persons.

    If they had bought shares directly from the Club (i.e. for the first time) then the money would flow to the club and they would have additional money to spend without any obligation to pay it back.

    What happened is a transaction in a secondary market between the new owners and the previous owners. It has nothing financially to do with the club.

    If you borrow money from a bank, have they invested in you? No they have lent you money which you are obliged to pay back. The bank has a guaranteed return called interest.

    Yes it does matter. A loan is a loan and temporary, not an investment, because they are obliged to repay. There is no obligation or requirement to repay any shareowner for their shares.

    @Cadleigh just has this completely wrong and in this case @bigoak is correct.

    The term Invest is used in all sorts of ways.

    If you always buy a secondhand Ford car, because you really like Ford as a company and think their cars are great, you can be described as 'invested' in Ford. However you havent invested any money in Ford.

    You can buy shares in lots of companies, you dont have to care about the company you just want their shares to go up. If you buy enough shares you can get a seat on the Board of a company. You can then use that to influence approaches to improve the share value, That of course assumes you have some competence to do so!

  • Started something here. Rather than go into it in detail may i point yo to the brilliant posts from

    @JackRaven on this subject, who has eloquently and clearly spelt it out factually .

    The evidence is there for us all to see. the club is starved of "Investment" we sell our best "Assets" at the stupidly low priced ( Ronon / James ) to give a few small examples. then buy cheap replacements ( punt) and hope that they will perform.

    You ask id the club is well run? Has a Hedge Fund , Absolutely ! . Has a Football Club/Business. No Chance!

    Take last January Transfer Window. SC was desperate for a Forward who would return on the investment. We where doing well and just needed to convert the work into goals. his pleas where ignored.

    Now who is to say had the Owners "Invested" in the business and backed the Manager, we would now be in the Prem? we where in top half and had a brilliant defensive record, just could not score goal. that small investment would have been rewarded to the tune of £200 Million + .

    That's why i call it a Hedge Fund , that's how they act. The Fund is about short term profit .

    Hope that explains my position and a big thank you to @JackRaven for explaining it far more eloquently than i ever could!

Sign In or Register to comment.