 | Forum
Reply | Is this mess in the public domain
at 18:43 21 Nov 2017
The Evening Post needs the club, they need the access to players etc.... so cant ever expect them to knowingly p!ss them off.
Don't want to bragg or anything.... :) but the Jack Swan magazine reaches every corner of Swansea and Neath etc... wont find many takeaways etc... without a copy. It's probably comfortably the second most read publication in our area (behind ep) and I've always welcomed different views within it. I'd given up posting on here for a while because i just couldn't be assed with all the childish abuse but when i did post here i would offer people chance to voice their views on club and that offer is always there. I want as many views as possible in there.
I've met with Phil Sumbler a couple of times to get his view on things, (hoping to again soon and with Will) i met with the guy behind the protest last home game for an interview last week to be published in next issue. On the other side I've also published interviews with Leigh Dineen and people 'associated' with club.
I often have a look on here to see whats going on and see many people posting who are clearly capable people who know their stuff and I'd love to see their views in Jack Swan magazine (whether pro or anti board) |
| Forum
Reply | Flat Earth Society
at 14:05 17 Nov 2017
You've obviously read a lot into this. Have you spent much time reading Einstein's theory of relativity? Large objects (like planets and stars) 'bend' light by their gravity warping space, they had to wait until an eclipse showed a star technically behind the sun which was only visible because of the warped space time.... technically your cleverer than them because your calculations showing how we see devon from swansea also proves this :) |
| Forum
Thread | In Huw We Trust?
at 09:37 8 Nov 2017
I'm trying to find a fan who still has 100% faith in our chairman for next issue. I'm speaking with someone who wants him out on Friday and want both sides of the argument for a feature in next Jack Swan magazine. If you still have total trust in Huw then please drop me a message or email info@jackswan.co.uk Cheers |
| Forum
Reply | Supporters Trust want any free message to go in Jack Swan magazine?
at 21:16 14 Nov 2016
The offer of space is and will aways be open to the trust. I'm not going to enter a name calling game on here and will leave things to you but would seriously ask the question to whether you think Darran (and others) labelling anyone and everyone 'pricks' is good for this site and/or the trust? I certainly can't be arsed for it. |
| Forum
Thread | Supporters Trust want any free message to go in Jack Swan magazine?
at 13:27 14 Nov 2016
Thought I'd put this here as getting no reply from Trust direct. I know jack swan magazine is seen as a message from Satan to many people on here but I have always offered Phil and (previously) huw the chance to put a message to our readers anytime they liked and that hasn't changed. The magazine is going to printers at end of this week if anything wants to go in it. I did print the address to the supporters trust in last months issue and also this letter to the trust itself.
http://jackswan.co.uk/dear-supporters-trust-embrace-ffs/ |
| Forum
Reply | Swans Trust Statement - Part 2
at 10:04 27 Jan 2016
So what are dates of this 3 1/2 years? And what is net figures for monk? Simple questions. :) |
| Forum
Reply | Swans Trust Statement - Part 2
at 15:00 26 Jan 2016
I do see that although I generally get attacked by the 'tin foil hat' brigade no matter what though. I think they like to moan at anything and I'm doing my part for society by giving them ammunition but I can possibly agree that 'fans being misled' wasn't the best use of title.
Definitely sounds like you need to get writing to me......... :) |
| Forum
Reply | Swans Trust Statement - Part 2
at 12:41 26 Jan 2016
I'm 'obsessed' with that part of it because that is the part which IMO influences our decision on the rest of the statement. I think most of us read it and thought that £40 million over 3 and a half years NET is a fair investment into transfers and that nobody could argue with the club backing Monk if he spent £50 million.
If this whole part was rewording to:-
"Over the past FOUR and a half years the club have a net deficit on transfers of in excess of £24M when you factor in signing on fees and agent fees, and in the last 18 months alone (highlighting just how much we backed Garry Monk) we have spent £5M NET on these deal".
I don't think that fans would have responded in the same way to the rest of the statement if this was how this line went. Now the £24 million may be wrong (but it will be considerably lower than £40 million and over a longer period ie. considerably less spent per season) and the £5 million Net could well be wrong (but when you think Bony, Davies, Vorm, Chico, Hernandez etc.. left then I expect that it isn't going to be much more than £10 million).
This is why I think this line is so important because for me it is designed to 'blame' Monk and it is manipulating figures carefully and I don't think that this is the right thing to do.
Whether these figures were chosen by the Trust or were given to the Trust by HJ I don't know but what I am pretty sure of is that these figures do show the optimum timescale for net spend and make it look like Monk was backed (possibly more than he was) by not showing the net figure over his time.
I'm not a spoilt Newcastle fan. I don't want us to make marquee signings and waste money. I totally support our transfer policies and the Trust and I put this in that article, the general message from the trust is right IMO. Transfers do cost more than we think, we probably do have less money in the kitty than what fans think and we do have to keep being smart in the transfer market which has been the (not so) secret to our success.
But I do still have an issue with that one part, I don't think it is a coincidence and I can't really explain myself any more on that. |
| Forum
Reply | Swans Trust Statement - Part 2
at 10:22 26 Jan 2016
I've not blamed anyone.
But I think a line that says monk spent £50 million and was backed, without mentioning how much he brought in over this time (when it was probably over £40 million) is designed for you and I to make up our own mind as to who is at fault.,,,,,, don't you? |
| Forum
Reply | Swans Trust Statement - Part 2
at 21:42 25 Jan 2016
I fully support our transfer policy and the ways we operate in transfer market. I'm not pushing for us to waste money, I say all this on it.
I stand by what I say and you have said nothing to make me think different.
3 and a half years is a weird time scale and I'd guess that it coincidentally happens to start just after Allen, Sinclair and Brendan and ends just before Jonjo went.
Statement implies that it really backed monk with £50 million but leaves out the bit about recouping massive sums too.
Think they are reasonable questions. If you want to put me right. Put in net figure for monk and show 4 and half year net figures then if happily print that: |
| Forum
Reply | Swans Trust Statement - Part 2
at 21:08 25 Jan 2016
Wouldn't it also be that it also happens to be the period which would show the most money spent per year? Coincidence?
But saying you backed a manager with £50 million if he's received £45 million is misleading.
And your implying I've got an agenda? |
| | JackSwanTV
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 1 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 1 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.