| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! 15:27 - Nov 3 with 19137 views | NOTRAC |
Although the 2014 accounts have not been published and submitted to Companies House in respect of Swansea City AFC ,the Trust has just published their 2014 accounts on their new website.
From these one thing stands out.The Trust has received a further dividend for the 2014 year of £210,000 which means that a total dividend of £1m has been declared and paid to all the shareholders.
This means that for each £100,000 originally invested by each shareholder they have now received a Return of £300,000, that is, three times their original investments.
If it is true that they are also looking to sell their shares to the American investors there is only one thing that can be said about them
They are greedy bastards who are no different to Mr Petty, the man they once decried.
Surely they should now do a Mel Nurse, and gift their shares back to the club, and prove that they are men of integrity and not the crap that they appear to be turning into. |  |
| |  |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 16:47 - Nov 3 with 1414 views | dgt73 |
Good luck to the board members they deserve every penny they get and without them there may well not have been a professional football club in Swansea. To the moaners get fooked. |  |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 16:54 - Nov 3 with 1401 views | Uxbridge |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 16:47 - Nov 3 by dgt73 |
Good luck to the board members they deserve every penny they get and without them there may well not have been a professional football club in Swansea. To the moaners get fooked. |
So you'll be happy for them to sell to whoever they want, regardless of the consequences? |  |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 16:57 - Nov 3 with 1393 views | dgt73 |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 16:54 - Nov 3 by Uxbridge |
So you'll be happy for them to sell to whoever they want, regardless of the consequences? |
Did i say that? Don't think i did. | |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 16:58 - Nov 3 with 1385 views | Uxbridge |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 16:57 - Nov 3 by dgt73 |
Did i say that? Don't think i did. |
That's what the main question at the moment is, isn't it? In comparison the divis are small fry. | |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:11 - Nov 3 with 1362 views | londonlisa2001 |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 15:46 - Nov 3 by Uxbridge |
It doesn't alter the facts, I agree.
I also agree the current shareholders have a moral obligation to act in the best interests of the football club and ensure the future prosperity of Swansea City Football Club.This club has been built on the ethos of being run by fans for the fans, and it's value now is inherently based on the goodwill they've enjoyed as such. |
so turn it into a PR based campaign then. It may not change the outcome, but will ensure that they can't have both the money and the goodwill.
Do something like 'thanks a million'. Guarantee each of them a million quid as a thank you. That equates to a million of the money in from the US per 5% holding (so that they all get a million quid). Those with 5% get a million, those with 10% £2 million and those with 20% £4 million. Given that there is 80% (approx) non Trust - £16m leaves the club to the current non trust shareholders. (Using round numbers for ease - it's close enough).
The remainder (80% of the non Trust holdings) get transferred to the Trust (assuming today's value of the club is £100m for ease). So, for example, a 5% holding should get £5m - it gets £1m to thank them for what they did, and £4m worth of shares (4%) goes to the Trust. 64% gets transferred to the Trust in that way (80% of 80%). The Trust is then left with £84m worth of shares of which £64m is additional to the current holding. So far the US have paid £16m for 16%.
The Trust then sells 33% of shares to the US for £33m. The Trust are left with 51% holding in perpetuity (and £33m). The US buyers now own 49% of the club and they have paid £49m for it (£16m to non Trust shareholders plus £33m to the Trust).
All that's really happened is the existing shareholders (non trust shareholders) give up some of their value to return shares to the Trust. The US investment remains at par and we end up with a club that is permanently owned by the Trust.
Next the shareholders (trust plus US investors) put the money into the club they believe is essential for 'growth'. The Trust now has £33m in cash so could put up to this amount in (as 51% with the US investing at 49%). So, say we need £50m for stadium expansion, training facilities & the team. This £50m comes in as £25.5m from the Trust and £24.5m from the US - both as equity to maintain relative shareholding. The Trust can now afford it and the club has no net debt but plenty of cash. The US have now paid out £73.5m (the £49m original shares and £24.5m new equity) but now own 49% of an asset worth £150m (he original £100m plus £50m cash now injected) so value is always maintained.
The downside for the US investors is that they only ever have a minority holding, but the upside is that they have a fellow shareholder that is also able to share the costs of expansion plans.
It won't happen, because the other parties won't agree to it, but it would be interesting to see from a PR perspective. The existing owners couldn't argue that it wouldn't work for the club (as actual money is available to go in, as per the £50m example above), it works for the Trust (majority owners in perpetuity) and also the current owners would prove that they aren't being greedy (given that each of them has made at least a million from it.
It would also be the best PR story in the world for all owners. | | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:20 - Nov 3 with 1332 views | Davillin |
LondonLisa, I have always had great respect for your insights, and still do, but I believe you're wrong on one point.
You wrote, "The downside for the US investors is that they only ever have a minority holding . . . ."
The fact, as I see it, is that what you call a "downside" is really what we call over here "a deal killer." There is no real attraction for the kind of investor we're writing about to go for less than control, if not 100%. And the reputed prospective "investor" fits the bill as his past dealings demonstrate.
p.s. If I remember correctly, selling shares outside the circle of current shareholders is subject to a strenuous hoop-jumping exercise intended to prevent it. |  |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:29 - Nov 3 with 1305 views | jojaca |
They deserve every penny and more, the last ten years + has been better than any Roy of the rovers tale. Still got to pinch myself we are in the premier league. The only thing to match that now is for Wales to qualify for a major tournament. [Post edited 3 Nov 2014 17:30]
|  |
| Even when you know, you never know? |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:30 - Nov 3 with 1302 views | Shaky |
Yup, it's a great plan apart from that, and the fact that existing non-Trust investors are required to take an 80% haircut on their investment. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:31 - Nov 3 with 1294 views | somersetsimon |
Do you know what profit level those dividends relate to? IIRC we made a pre-tax profit of over £20M last year. If that's still the case, then a £1M dividend payout isn't that excessive. Of course, it's up to the board of directors what the dividend payout should be, if there is one at all.
In a perfect world, we don't really want the club to make a profit (apart from a rainy day fund and supporting cashflow). The money should be reinvested in players, facilities and possibly, maintaining ticket prices at a reasonable level. |  | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:32 - Nov 3 with 1292 views | londonlisa2001 |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:20 - Nov 3 by Davillin |
LondonLisa, I have always had great respect for your insights, and still do, but I believe you're wrong on one point.
You wrote, "The downside for the US investors is that they only ever have a minority holding . . . ."
The fact, as I see it, is that what you call a "downside" is really what we call over here "a deal killer." There is no real attraction for the kind of investor we're writing about to go for less than control, if not 100%. And the reputed prospective "investor" fits the bill as his past dealings demonstrate.
p.s. If I remember correctly, selling shares outside the circle of current shareholders is subject to a strenuous hoop-jumping exercise intended to prevent it. |
yes I believe that to be the case as well. However, we have rumours that they are prepared to own as little as 30% of the club (from the existing shareholders) so I'm taking that at face value.
Remember that what I'm suggesting is not what would work in practice but a PR solution to flush out the crap from what's being said. The solution fits with all of the required criteria that our shareholders are stating exist - not those that actually exist. The reason for the suggestion is to flush out the truth in a way which makes easy argument against it almost impossible for the current incumbents. | | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:37 - Nov 3 with 1267 views | londonlisa2001 |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:30 - Nov 3 by Shaky |
Yup, it's a great plan apart from that, and the fact that existing non-Trust investors are required to take an 80% haircut on their investment. |
as I said to Dav - it's not supposed to be an actual solution - it's a PR exercise that gets them to admit what's actually happening. My first sentence was
'so turn it into a PR based campaign then. It may not change the outcome, but will ensure that they can't have both the money and the goodwill.'
Of course they won't do it - there's not a chance in hell they'll do it. But suggest it as an answer to what they've been saying - 'it's about the club', 'we need investment into the club', 'the US are prepared to take a minority stake', 'we're not being greedy' etc.
Since the reality is - of course it's about making themselves money - they seem to think the fan base was born yesterday. I don't think there's much can be done about that (unless there are clauses in an agreement we don't know about). What we can do though, is get them to stop the crap and admit the truth. | | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:41 - Nov 3 with 1260 views | Shaky |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:37 - Nov 3 by londonlisa2001 |
as I said to Dav - it's not supposed to be an actual solution - it's a PR exercise that gets them to admit what's actually happening. My first sentence was
'so turn it into a PR based campaign then. It may not change the outcome, but will ensure that they can't have both the money and the goodwill.'
Of course they won't do it - there's not a chance in hell they'll do it. But suggest it as an answer to what they've been saying - 'it's about the club', 'we need investment into the club', 'the US are prepared to take a minority stake', 'we're not being greedy' etc.
Since the reality is - of course it's about making themselves money - they seem to think the fan base was born yesterday. I don't think there's much can be done about that (unless there are clauses in an agreement we don't know about). What we can do though, is get them to stop the crap and admit the truth. |
Let me tell you one thing for nowt, Lisa; it is idiotic to turn this issue into something antagonistic with the existing investors, especially at this early stage where there appears to be no real information certainly in the hands of the Trust.
You have to try to influence them behind the scenes, talk them around, be reasonable. On the other hand try to hold them to ransom and you are more than likely f*cked. | |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:45 - Nov 3 with 1241 views | londonlisa2001 |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:41 - Nov 3 by Shaky |
Let me tell you one thing for nowt, Lisa; it is idiotic to turn this issue into something antagonistic with the existing investors, especially at this early stage where there appears to be no real information certainly in the hands of the Trust.
You have to try to influence them behind the scenes, talk them around, be reasonable. On the other hand try to hold them to ransom and you are more than likely f*cked. |
It was turned into something antagonistic the minute the Trust released a statement saying we don't believe the reasons being given for investment being required.
In fact, prior to that, it became antagonistic when whoever started briefing that the Trust were blocking.
Come on Shaky - you know what's going on, so don't pretend you don't just to be argumentative. The whole thing has turned into a Pr campaign already. | | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:50 - Nov 3 with 1231 views | Shaky |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:45 - Nov 3 by londonlisa2001 |
It was turned into something antagonistic the minute the Trust released a statement saying we don't believe the reasons being given for investment being required.
In fact, prior to that, it became antagonistic when whoever started briefing that the Trust were blocking.
Come on Shaky - you know what's going on, so don't pretend you don't just to be argumentative. The whole thing has turned into a Pr campaign already. |
Whatever. | |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:52 - Nov 3 with 1216 views | monmouth |
Just on a point of principle, wouldn't the trust have full knowledge of any discussions by dint of being a board member?....in theory anyway, I've seen how these things can work in practice when large sums of personal money or power are concerned....mind you even then the full board were kept fully informed although three of them were getting a right royal stitching...they just couldn't do anything about it and were bound to confidentiality and 'cabinet' decision. Are private companies different in that regard? |  |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:54 - Nov 3 with 1187 views | londonlisa2001 |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:50 - Nov 3 by Shaky |
Whatever. |
another excellent contribution. | | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:55 - Nov 3 with 1184 views | Fuggie |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 16:58 - Nov 3 by Uxbridge |
That's what the main question at the moment is, isn't it? In comparison the divis are small fry. |
I thought the rumour was 30-40% holding being sold to an unnamed investor (probably US)? This could mean 1 or 2 investors fully selling up or a split a dilution of all investors holdings (except the trust).
Either way I cannot believe how much moaning there is about this club at present. First of all we have moaners saying we are not investing enough on players and that the stadium (that we do not own) should be increased immediately to 30,000+ or even build a new stadium.
Now when there is the possibility of investment coming into the club, the local individuals who took an extremely high risk 12 years ago are being criticised for selling their shares at a profit. Despite no formal offer being made.
May I remind people that 12 years ago the club was on it's ar$e. No matter how much love you had for the club investing £100,000 (10%) back then was extremely high risk. I doubt any of the investors expected to received their money back let a lone a return.
Despite the sorry state the club was in these individuals helped the club ensure its financial position is as secure as it is today despite the possible detriment to their own finances. Yes I expect some of them had contracts with the club but I cannot remember there being an outcry due to profiteering. With the amount of leaks in our club we would have heard something by now.
Are we now saying that these people will go back against their own ethics/ethos?
Some investors maybe thinking of selling up. Well if they do so be it . Maybe they intend to gift some of the shares to the Trust when this happens. Who knows. There are a lot of assumptions based on the glass half empty scenarios and everyone knows "Assumption is the mother of all f... ups".
The speculation is becoming ridiculous and to a certain extent farcical.
What will be will be. | | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:58 - Nov 3 with 1177 views | NeathJack |
I think I may be on my own here but I don't think any dividends should be getting paid out and no shareholders should be profiting from the sale of any shares.
They are custodians of the club on behalf of the fans and should not be making any money off the back of it, regardless of how successful they've been.
That's not why they got into it and that shouldn't be what they do now. |  | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 18:00 - Nov 3 with 1172 views | Shaky |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:52 - Nov 3 by monmouth |
Just on a point of principle, wouldn't the trust have full knowledge of any discussions by dint of being a board member?....in theory anyway, I've seen how these things can work in practice when large sums of personal money or power are concerned....mind you even then the full board were kept fully informed although three of them were getting a right royal stitching...they just couldn't do anything about it and were bound to confidentiality and 'cabinet' decision. Are private companies different in that regard? |
Depends on whether the Trust director is bound by any confidentiality undertaking given by the club pursuant to a pre-due diligence exercise, say in the absence of a formal offer.
And I'll tell you also for nowt, that the whole process would without doubt have been significantly more transparent to the Trust if they had acted on my strong suggestion to move for a separation of the CEO and Chairman roles last year.
Anyway, if the potential new investor doesn't really care about current financials which seems entirely plausible they might be conducting negotiations directly with the shareholders outside the auspices of any formal relationship with the company. | |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 18:00 - Nov 3 with 1171 views | londonlisa2001 |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:52 - Nov 3 by monmouth |
Just on a point of principle, wouldn't the trust have full knowledge of any discussions by dint of being a board member?....in theory anyway, I've seen how these things can work in practice when large sums of personal money or power are concerned....mind you even then the full board were kept fully informed although three of them were getting a right royal stitching...they just couldn't do anything about it and were bound to confidentiality and 'cabinet' decision. Are private companies different in that regard? |
no.
The Trust have to have full knowledge (a) as a board member and then (b) as a shareholder.
The two things will not necessarily be at the same time though, so the Trust director could know things before the Trust as a shareholder knows things. | | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 18:02 - Nov 3 with 1155 views | Davillin |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:52 - Nov 3 by monmouth |
Just on a point of principle, wouldn't the trust have full knowledge of any discussions by dint of being a board member?....in theory anyway, I've seen how these things can work in practice when large sums of personal money or power are concerned....mind you even then the full board were kept fully informed although three of them were getting a right royal stitching...they just couldn't do anything about it and were bound to confidentiality and 'cabinet' decision. Are private companies different in that regard? |
Excellent questions. And important.
I posted in more detail than this post about that on two threads. Yes, unless there's some bad behaviour somewhere, our Trust member of the club board must know about everything the club board, or any member of the club board, do in their official capacity, full stop. He also has a legal and ethical mandate to report all of that to the Trust Board. I have 1005 complete confidence in Huw Cooze that our Trust Board know everything.
On the other hand, the Trust Board is equally legally and ethically bound to keep certain matters confidential, meaning within the board membership.
I absolutely would not have it any other way.
Remember, however, that private communications between, say two board members can be kept private between themselves [meaning from other board members]. That would make things diffi9cult for the Trust if our director were not one in on the private communication.
It is law firmly binding that no member of a board can or may bind the board in any way, including personal negotiations with an outside party, such as someone who wants to buy shares.
All of this is at the same time simple and complicated,, but understandable. | |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 18:05 - Nov 3 with 1146 views | londonlisa2001 |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 18:00 - Nov 3 by Shaky |
Depends on whether the Trust director is bound by any confidentiality undertaking given by the club pursuant to a pre-due diligence exercise, say in the absence of a formal offer.
And I'll tell you also for nowt, that the whole process would without doubt have been significantly more transparent to the Trust if they had acted on my strong suggestion to move for a separation of the CEO and Chairman roles last year.
Anyway, if the potential new investor doesn't really care about current financials which seems entirely plausible they might be conducting negotiations directly with the shareholders outside the auspices of any formal relationship with the company. |
how do you know how transparent any of this is to the Trust?
Also don't understand the other point (re separation of Trust roles). Why would that make any difference? | | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 18:05 - Nov 3 with 1143 views | Fuggie |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:58 - Nov 3 by NeathJack |
I think I may be on my own here but I don't think any dividends should be getting paid out and no shareholders should be profiting from the sale of any shares.
They are custodians of the club on behalf of the fans and should not be making any money off the back of it, regardless of how successful they've been.
That's not why they got into it and that shouldn't be what they do now. |
This is the problem. A professional football club is a business these days. Back in the 80's when Sky was not around I agree owners were thought of as custodians, though there were a few who tried to make a profit. These days with all the large revenue flowing into a Premier league club they are actually investors.
I agree with your assessment that the Swans investors did it for the love of the club but I think they should be rewarded for the risks they took with their own money. Just to return £100,000 with a thank you card would be pushing it after 12 years. [Post edited 3 Nov 2014 18:06]
| | | |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 18:08 - Nov 3 with 1128 views | Davillin |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 17:55 - Nov 3 by Fuggie |
I thought the rumour was 30-40% holding being sold to an unnamed investor (probably US)? This could mean 1 or 2 investors fully selling up or a split a dilution of all investors holdings (except the trust).
Either way I cannot believe how much moaning there is about this club at present. First of all we have moaners saying we are not investing enough on players and that the stadium (that we do not own) should be increased immediately to 30,000+ or even build a new stadium.
Now when there is the possibility of investment coming into the club, the local individuals who took an extremely high risk 12 years ago are being criticised for selling their shares at a profit. Despite no formal offer being made.
May I remind people that 12 years ago the club was on it's ar$e. No matter how much love you had for the club investing £100,000 (10%) back then was extremely high risk. I doubt any of the investors expected to received their money back let a lone a return.
Despite the sorry state the club was in these individuals helped the club ensure its financial position is as secure as it is today despite the possible detriment to their own finances. Yes I expect some of them had contracts with the club but I cannot remember there being an outcry due to profiteering. With the amount of leaks in our club we would have heard something by now.
Are we now saying that these people will go back against their own ethics/ethos?
Some investors maybe thinking of selling up. Well if they do so be it . Maybe they intend to gift some of the shares to the Trust when this happens. Who knows. There are a lot of assumptions based on the glass half empty scenarios and everyone knows "Assumption is the mother of all f... ups".
The speculation is becoming ridiculous and to a certain extent farcical.
What will be will be. |
Are you the public relations director for the board members wishing to sell out by cashing out?
Sounds like it from your arguments above, which might be characterized with a sweetening dollop of sarcasm in a very few words: screw the club, just gimme my money. | |
| |
| A million quid for the shareholders It's official! on 18:10 - Nov 3 with 1119 views | Fuggie |
I don't think they have one. I might apply but would not be any good.
Either way all I am suggesting is wait until an actual offer is made not speculate about what will (rather than might) happen | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.