FAO Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan

please log in to view this image

 

Missing the point ....Everything we built at a low cost with good results , was handed to the Americans to fill the pockets of Jenkins and Morgan and a few others , at the expense of continued practical success .

 

and what point might that be ? he along with the other board members awarded them selves and others a100% pay rise .

 

In Huw we trusted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29879681

But then became very wary and cautious of "the fans" that were the board.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29979755


Also this set of accounts:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

Then down to a debt of £21M.

Swansea City
Accounts of Swansea City Football 2002 Ltd for 14 months to 31 July 2015 (club changed its financial year end to 31 July, so all figures are for 14 months from 31 May 2014)

• Ownership Martin Morgan 23.7%; Brian Katzen 10.5%; Jeffrey Crevoiserat 10.5%; Swansea City Supporters Society Limited 21.1%; Huw Jenkins 13.2%; Robert Davies 10.5%; John van Zweden 5%; Leigh Dineen 5%

• Turnover Joint 12th highest in League £104m, up from £99m in 2014

• Income Gate and match-day income £8m; TV and broadcasting £85m; Commercial & other £11m

• Wage bill 8th highest in League £83m, up from £63m in 2014

• Wages as proportion of turnover 80%

• Profit before tax £2m, following £1m profit in 2014

• Net debt £21m

• Interest payable £0.2m

• Highest-paid director Huw Jenkins, £516,667

State they are in: Long hailed as a model ownership structure, including by the Premier League’s Richard Scudamore. But the shareholders who have been partners to the supporters trust’s 21% stake for 14 years are now selling. The takeover by US investors Stephen Kaplan and Jason Levien is understood to be nearing completion, with the owners set to make millions for shares now valued at 100 times more than they paid in 2002. Huw Jenkins, credited with expert stewardship of the club through its remarkable rise, is set to stay as executive chairman.

The debt part can be attributed to players value, length of contract and a few other variables or so it would appear.

 

Shallow words indeed:

"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." - Huw Jenkins http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29979755

 

I think the point from most is the money they made as owners selling out to the Americans ..... not wages being on the board , I could be wrong though .

 

Look! What they did years ago when they saved the club by risking some of their loot was good for all of you. However, they have done nothing wrong in law. Yet it leaves a bad taste. What they risked was returned many times over when by good management you climbed the leagues and got to the promised land. I reckon, that is when it went wrong. HJ probably thought he was God's gift to manager choosing and went into player choice as well. Honestly speaking, clubs without a sugar daddy have to be really canny in the Premiership to stay there. Swans have done well without one but it started crumbling a while ago as money was spent on paying off managers, buying more expensive players rather than the cheap ones that came good and got sold on to generate cash. If you think of the big profits you have made on some players, it is hard to see that over the piece you've only made 9 million in five years. And you need something like 10-15 million excess to stay at breakeven.
Yet, one can blame the directors who brought you here when, having agreed they can take you no further (not being willing or able to shell out from their own pockets to keep getting new players), they jump ship to the highest bidders for their own pockets rather than doing the best for the club. One, who is apparently worth 60 million now, made 20 million of that (was it?) off the back of the club. One has been pulling a very nice wage for doing a job he loves and doesn't need the cash, surely. It is that sort of thing that must stick in the craw. One, who made a mint, was the trust representative who, I think, bought shares cheap and sold for a mint.
The Americans bring a certain approach to club ownership where each element earns its way. Not sure what they will do now. It is a real risk investing in new players now but it might work to keep you up. Their original investment is looking really bad now and must be at risk. They will get bugger all if you go down. Even if you stay up, the TV payments are simply income and not profit to be distributed as dividend and they need to get income up hugely to start profits and dividends for themselves.
The assets in the club are at Fairwood and Landore and hold little value as training grounds and the like. Parachute payments are to cover PL wages for a Championship club and if they snaffle those by some means, they will have to shell out to cover the costs for which they were intended.
They must be looking very carefully at whatever prospectus they were given when they bought in and also looking closely at whoever did due diligence for them.

 

" However they have done nothing wrong in law " ..........maybe , maybe not ...and that goes for the new owners too . Trying to install Dineen and making a 180 turn from it is at least an interesting ' Retreat " by the new owners

 

Are you certain they have done nothing wrong in law? The Trust were considering legal action in respect of the takeover.

 

If its proven that the shares were sold to the yanks without abiding with the shareholders agreement then they've potentially in a position that the share sale could be deemed invalid .it depends on the wording of the agreement which Jerkins denied existed ,I wonder why he did that ?

 

So he could go begging to the Supporters Trust to sign waivers over the wink of an eye and a Huw Jenkins handshake

 

My bad...... shloud have said on the face of it. But i also mention sale prospectus and due diligence which might throw up some bugs if the yanks go that way.