| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 14:27 - Sep 4 with 1819 views | Catullus |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 13:59 - Sep 4 by awayjack |
My exact point is the Executive Board - Jenkins and Co plus the new Board members US appointed - were the main decision-makers that failed. Are you saying because Jenkins still has some shares he must be retained? Kaplan and Levien representing the majority shareholders are more like ‘investor directors’ and as far as disclosed, not directly remunerated. If they are now the main decision-makers, why do we need a hugely expensive Board that have failed?
I’m confused by your views. You seem supportive of selling players /slashing their costs but seem happy to keep the Board and non playing costs at an unsustainable level. |
I guess we have to draw the line somewhere and move on. Isn't that what this statement is about?
They say Jenkins has a reduced role and isn't involved in transfers - good enough for me, short term anyway.
They say it's a rebuild and they are definitely here long term - as long as they realise that to make any profit the team has to be reasonable succesful, that the manager will need funds and that they can't just sell our best rated assets every window without replacing them.
To me, categorically stating they are here long term is something to feel slightly more positive about.
The best course to making a profit is to have us challenging at the top end, it keeps crowds up, it keeps us on tv and when it comes to selling, a well run club with no debts and a very good manager is far more attractive than the basket case we were last season.
As with everything, time will tell. I will keep supporting Potter and the players and I'm still of the opinion Jenkins needs to walk but for now maybe it's time to call a truce until January and see what happens. If all they do is sell and cut more costs it will all kick off again. |  |
|  |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 14:45 - Sep 4 with 1804 views | jasper_T |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 13:59 - Sep 4 by awayjack |
My exact point is the Executive Board - Jenkins and Co plus the new Board members US appointed - were the main decision-makers that failed. Are you saying because Jenkins still has some shares he must be retained? Kaplan and Levien representing the majority shareholders are more like ‘investor directors’ and as far as disclosed, not directly remunerated. If they are now the main decision-makers, why do we need a hugely expensive Board that have failed?
I’m confused by your views. You seem supportive of selling players /slashing their costs but seem happy to keep the Board and non playing costs at an unsustainable level. |
No, I'm saying Huw Jenkins does seem to have been demoted/"moved upstairs" (or whatever they do in the corporate world these days) as a result of his failures. He clearly doesn't have the decision-making power he once had, even if he's still at the company and in a position to offer advice. With a 5% holding (less voting rights) and probably a contract clause in the sale deal (Dineen mentioned he had something tying him in through this year iirc) he's probably hard to shift entirely.
Yes, I'm happy with us selling failed players and cutting costs to match the division we're playing in. I don't believe the "non-playing costs" were nearly as high as the fag packet maths of some posters make out from the 16/17 accounts, and certainly aren't still that high now. | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 15:56 - Sep 4 with 1753 views | Smellyplumz |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 14:27 - Sep 4 by Catullus |
I guess we have to draw the line somewhere and move on. Isn't that what this statement is about?
They say Jenkins has a reduced role and isn't involved in transfers - good enough for me, short term anyway.
They say it's a rebuild and they are definitely here long term - as long as they realise that to make any profit the team has to be reasonable succesful, that the manager will need funds and that they can't just sell our best rated assets every window without replacing them.
To me, categorically stating they are here long term is something to feel slightly more positive about.
The best course to making a profit is to have us challenging at the top end, it keeps crowds up, it keeps us on tv and when it comes to selling, a well run club with no debts and a very good manager is far more attractive than the basket case we were last season.
As with everything, time will tell. I will keep supporting Potter and the players and I'm still of the opinion Jenkins needs to walk but for now maybe it's time to call a truce until January and see what happens. If all they do is sell and cut more costs it will all kick off again. |
And you believe what they say... Wow. |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 17:34 - Sep 4 with 1703 views | byron |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 15:56 - Sep 4 by Smellyplumz |
And you believe what they say... Wow. |
So do quite a few, astounding really. You are talking about a hedge fund here, does anyone need an explanation of what they exist for? |  |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 17:39 - Sep 4 with 1699 views | jack_lord |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 22:26 - Sep 3 by jackrmee |
TBF that is quite a decent interview and they come out sounding rather tidy and talking sense.
Of course, it could well be a piece of sheepskin being draped across my retinas, but who knows? [Post edited 3 Sep 2018 22:28]
|
They are very good are sounding plausible. |  |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 17:56 - Sep 4 with 1689 views | awayjack |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 14:45 - Sep 4 by jasper_T |
No, I'm saying Huw Jenkins does seem to have been demoted/"moved upstairs" (or whatever they do in the corporate world these days) as a result of his failures. He clearly doesn't have the decision-making power he once had, even if he's still at the company and in a position to offer advice. With a 5% holding (less voting rights) and probably a contract clause in the sale deal (Dineen mentioned he had something tying him in through this year iirc) he's probably hard to shift entirely.
Yes, I'm happy with us selling failed players and cutting costs to match the division we're playing in. I don't believe the "non-playing costs" were nearly as high as the fag packet maths of some posters make out from the 16/17 accounts, and certainly aren't still that high now. |
Most directors have long contacts but it doesn’t decent shareholders replacing them stop them and being paid-off. Peanuts compared to millions of losses on players.
Re non-playing costs, if you accept wages and expenses are properly reported in 2017 at £126m, what basis do you believe other costs are so low? Even if playing wages were £75m+, which seems ludicrous based on our squad in comparison with other PL squads, it leaves £50m in other costs. What do you mean by low? |  | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:04 - Sep 4 with 1679 views | jasper_T |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 17:56 - Sep 4 by awayjack |
Most directors have long contacts but it doesn’t decent shareholders replacing them stop them and being paid-off. Peanuts compared to millions of losses on players.
Re non-playing costs, if you accept wages and expenses are properly reported in 2017 at £126m, what basis do you believe other costs are so low? Even if playing wages were £75m+, which seems ludicrous based on our squad in comparison with other PL squads, it leaves £50m in other costs. What do you mean by low? |
Huw can't cost us millions on players any more. He doesn't hold the chequebook. Until we see the 18/19 accounts (in 2020) we probably won't know what he's being paid for his new reduced role in the Championship.
What do you think £50m was spent on that season that was so objectionable to you? | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:17 - Sep 4 with 1672 views | Arizlan2 |
Woods was not the right fit ugh Jason... what you actually mean is you aren't prepared to pay the extra 500k for a quality player! Why should Brentford knock money off such a great player, I didn't see you knock money off Siggy!
You made the call not to sign woods as you obviously know better than your coaches, that's why you signed bob dwibley and wasted even more of our money. Do everyone a favour and p!$$ off back to yankville | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:19 - Sep 4 with 1663 views | jasper_T |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:17 - Sep 4 by Arizlan2 |
Woods was not the right fit ugh Jason... what you actually mean is you aren't prepared to pay the extra 500k for a quality player! Why should Brentford knock money off such a great player, I didn't see you knock money off Siggy!
You made the call not to sign woods as you obviously know better than your coaches, that's why you signed bob dwibley and wasted even more of our money. Do everyone a favour and p!$$ off back to yankville |
If you could read you would see he wasn't willing to pay £6m. The extra £500k they lumped on last minute wasn't the deal breaker. | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:32 - Sep 4 with 1645 views | RevJames |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 22:16 - Sep 3 by TNT |
I thought no negativity was allowed on here until January? |
 | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:33 - Sep 4 with 1643 views | Arizlan2 |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:19 - Sep 4 by jasper_T |
If you could read you would see he wasn't willing to pay £6m. The extra £500k they lumped on last minute wasn't the deal breaker. |
If you could read jasper you would know this forum is for Swansea fans, Gaydar on the other hand is here: www.gaydar.net
Hope that helps you find what you were looking for! | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:43 - Sep 4 with 1629 views | jasper_T |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:33 - Sep 4 by Arizlan2 |
If you could read jasper you would know this forum is for Swansea fans, Gaydar on the other hand is here: www.gaydar.net
Hope that helps you find what you were looking for! |
Thanks for sharing your bookmarks but I'm not sure what that has to do with the Ryan Woods transfer. | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:53 - Sep 4 with 1609 views | Arizlan2 |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:43 - Sep 4 by jasper_T |
Thanks for sharing your bookmarks but I'm not sure what that has to do with the Ryan Woods transfer. |
All you can think about is WOOD 😂🆠| | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:21 - Sep 4 with 1581 views | awayjack |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:04 - Sep 4 by jasper_T |
Huw can't cost us millions on players any more. He doesn't hold the chequebook. Until we see the 18/19 accounts (in 2020) we probably won't know what he's being paid for his new reduced role in the Championship.
What do you think £50m was spent on that season that was so objectionable to you? |
Concern is they cut playing costs to the bone but continue to pay large Board, Consulting and management fees in the non-playing costs. If the sustainable model is a real goal, how do they plan to get form £126m of costs in 2017 to £25m or so post parachutes? If we’ve cut £35m from playing side, then another £15m after we lose Bony, other high earners and agents, that’s still £75m+ it costs.
Again you haven’t given any of your thoughts on the £126m of costs. You seem close to the club so what’s your best stab - £85m playing / £40m non-playing?
Any half decent leader of transformation knows how critical clear communication is to success. Zero has been mentioned on non-playing costs in any of the numerous Board / shareholder announcements. This, the lack of trust from the original sale and ‘next level’ bullshit, and various leaks that the Board won’t accept even 10% cuts. These are fueling the conspiracy theories that they continue to draw their millions at the expense of playing side. You don’t have concerns? | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:41 - Sep 4 with 1558 views | jasper_T |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:21 - Sep 4 by awayjack |
Concern is they cut playing costs to the bone but continue to pay large Board, Consulting and management fees in the non-playing costs. If the sustainable model is a real goal, how do they plan to get form £126m of costs in 2017 to £25m or so post parachutes? If we’ve cut £35m from playing side, then another £15m after we lose Bony, other high earners and agents, that’s still £75m+ it costs.
Again you haven’t given any of your thoughts on the £126m of costs. You seem close to the club so what’s your best stab - £85m playing / £40m non-playing?
Any half decent leader of transformation knows how critical clear communication is to success. Zero has been mentioned on non-playing costs in any of the numerous Board / shareholder announcements. This, the lack of trust from the original sale and ‘next level’ bullshit, and various leaks that the Board won’t accept even 10% cuts. These are fueling the conspiracy theories that they continue to draw their millions at the expense of playing side. You don’t have concerns? |
I'm no accountant but the total wage figure for the club was £99m of which Jenkins was only £633k inc. tax so we're talking some enormous wages for the media team and shop girls if first team costs were only £85m.
As I've said before I don't see much value in separating playing and non-playing as huge numbers of staff fulfil essential support roles through all levels of the football club. It's a misleading distinction as money spent on coaches, physios, analysts etc. is important to the success of the first team.
Of course I have concerns but Pearlman getting precious about a 10% drop in salary isn't ringing massive alarm bells. You couldn't pay a decent u23s player with that. | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:47 - Sep 4 with 1545 views | _ |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:17 - Sep 4 by Arizlan2 |
Woods was not the right fit ugh Jason... what you actually mean is you aren't prepared to pay the extra 500k for a quality player! Why should Brentford knock money off such a great player, I didn't see you knock money off Siggy!
You made the call not to sign woods as you obviously know better than your coaches, that's why you signed bob dwibley and wasted even more of our money. Do everyone a favour and p!$$ off back to yankville |
They did knock money off Siggy's price. |  |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:48 - Sep 4 with 1542 views | _ |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:33 - Sep 4 by Arizlan2 |
If you could read jasper you would know this forum is for Swansea fans, Gaydar on the other hand is here: www.gaydar.net
Hope that helps you find what you were looking for! |
Taken straight from his bookmarks | |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:48 - Sep 4 with 1540 views | _ |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:43 - Sep 4 by jasper_T |
Thanks for sharing your bookmarks but I'm not sure what that has to do with the Ryan Woods transfer. |
Ha, beat me to it | |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:53 - Sep 4 with 1532 views | longlostjack |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 18:04 - Sep 4 by jasper_T |
Huw can't cost us millions on players any more. He doesn't hold the chequebook. Until we see the 18/19 accounts (in 2020) we probably won't know what he's being paid for his new reduced role in the Championship.
What do you think £50m was spent on that season that was so objectionable to you? |
What do you think management accounts are for? |  |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:58 - Sep 4 with 1526 views | jasper_T |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:53 - Sep 4 by longlostjack |
What do you think management accounts are for? |
Are we going to see the management accounts? | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 20:29 - Sep 4 with 1491 views | KrisP |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 17:34 - Sep 4 by byron |
So do quite a few, astounding really. You are talking about a hedge fund here, does anyone need an explanation of what they exist for? |
What profit do you think there is to be made in a League One club? Even if they sell everything but the kitchen sink, they won't be able to withdraw enough cash to cover what they've put in, let alone make a juicy profit. | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 20:45 - Sep 4 with 1483 views | longlostjack |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:58 - Sep 4 by jasper_T |
Are we going to see the management accounts? |
Personally I see no reason why they should be confidential. The Trust owns a significant shareholding and has a duty to inform it’s members. | |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 20:50 - Sep 4 with 1469 views | KrisP |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 20:45 - Sep 4 by longlostjack |
Personally I see no reason why they should be confidential. The Trust owns a significant shareholding and has a duty to inform it’s members. |
It does not have a duty to inform members about what goes on at the club at a line-by-line accounting level. There are almost certainly things in there that are commercially sensitive and might give something away to competitors. | | | |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 20:58 - Sep 4 with 1458 views | longlostjack |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 20:50 - Sep 4 by KrisP |
It does not have a duty to inform members about what goes on at the club at a line-by-line accounting level. There are almost certainly things in there that are commercially sensitive and might give something away to competitors. |
Not suggesting a line-by-line disclosure but please explain how Huw’s remuneration or the interest charged on a bridging loan might help competitors? | |
| |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 22:40 - Sep 4 with 1394 views | awayjack |
| Statement from The Moneysnatchers in Washington. on 19:41 - Sep 4 by jasper_T |
I'm no accountant but the total wage figure for the club was £99m of which Jenkins was only £633k inc. tax so we're talking some enormous wages for the media team and shop girls if first team costs were only £85m.
As I've said before I don't see much value in separating playing and non-playing as huge numbers of staff fulfil essential support roles through all levels of the football club. It's a misleading distinction as money spent on coaches, physios, analysts etc. is important to the success of the first team.
Of course I have concerns but Pearlman getting precious about a 10% drop in salary isn't ringing massive alarm bells. You couldn't pay a decent u23s player with that. |
OK I’ve asked a few times and respect you don’t want to give a view on the £126m cost breakdown. It’s not just £99m wages you mention but an extra £27m of other expenses. Agree it’s clearly not the tea lady of lower paid staff. I’m sure Burnley who’s costs for same period were £55m lower than ours - have plenty of low paid back room staff on their payroll. They also had/have a pretty competive playing squad!
As mentioned on many threads, my concern - flagged to Trust who have access to far more detailed financials - is the need to understand the nature of the costs, with the changes in 2018 and critically how do we move from £126m in costs to the £25m we need to be sustainable after parachute payments.
I hear the Trust are still waiting for a growing list of financial questions to be answered. Hopefully when the information is supplied, the 2018 accounts are reported and maybe the Board share an outline plan to support the ‘sustainability’ objective, we’ll have more clarity and quash some of the conspiracy theories that naturally arise in the absence of meaningful information. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
