That's true, but one thing to note football is a unique business. Once you start treating it as a business then you the supporters will start being treated like the customers. Now i don't profess to know how the football club is run and how its part of the Swansea community but in all likelihood if they treat Swansea as business things will change. Whether that is higher ticket prices, changing your team colours, sacking local legends (maybe a few who work at the club), hiring of unpopular directors, changing club names, these will happen without the consensus of the fans. That is something you need to think long and hard about. One of the admiral things about Swansea FC is that it is still being run as a football club and from the sounds of things with supporters involved
Bobby I think that is some of our fans fears. I know my club has to try at expand globaly, but at what cost. Lets hope HJ who in all fairness I believe has the clubs best interests at heart gets this one right. This is probably the biggest desicion our club will have to make and could well affect its future for good or for bad. I have my fingers crossed on this one.
These things DON'T happen without the consensus of the fans at Swansea. The Supporters' Trust has a 21% holding in the company and is unwilling to budge even if the other board members decide to sell some of their shares to accommodate the investors. After the shares have been sold, the Trust will actually, most likely, be the second largest shareholder at the club. As Yankee said, as long as voting rights stay the same, the fans will have a large say in the running of the club. These new investors will join the board, but I think it's a bit rich to call them new 'owners', I don't feel like that's the case. They are part of the ownership of SCFC, but probably not outright owners who can make decisions without consultation and approval of the board. I do understand that football is a unique business, but that's mostly because it's uniquely abused by the majority of businessmen involved in it. What I'm trying to get across in this thread is that I can't see our prudent, sensible board wanting to get a sugar daddy floating the club on their hundreds of millions. We only need a bit of money from them to complete a few things now rather than later (training facilities which are currently only half complete, and a stadium expansion). We could wait 3 more years and pay for it ourselves, but waiting 3 years could see us relegated. Then we need them to give us some global business sense in the board room because, as things stand, nobody in our board room has real experience of running a worldwide sports business. They're all learning on the job. I get the feeling that we aren't asking them to come in and starting dictating on-field matters and splashing their cash left, right and centre on players. We need them for their business sense and a small financial float/loan for infrastructure to allow us to continue to grow. It's not an out-of-the-ordinary thing for a company to require. Of course, I don't know what sort of conversations have taken place between the investors and our board. If they are expecting them come in and be our sugar daddy to take us to league titles and Champions League titles, then thanks, but I'd rather not. If the investment is sensible (as I described and as I expect), then I fully expect to see them on board and think that we need it - especially as, right now, it appears that we don't have the funds to complete our training facilities and stadium while still being able to spend any serious money on players. That's quite clear or, to be honest, Fairwood would be complete by now and the stadium expansion would be underway. They sorted the pitches at Fairwood, but the changing room building still looks like League 2 facilities.
These guys dont care if its football,basketball or any popular sport that's immaterial to people like them who have their investments in many pies, They see an opportunity to make money and that's fair enough just as long as they dont take more than they put in to better the clubs profits. These are very experienced backers and if we really cant survive in the future without investment then i welcome them. They wont have any input on players that will still be jinx and monks job...
My only question, is our club only worth £100m? We are in the top 30 richest clubs, we have no debt. £30m for 30% shares, seems a bit cheap if you ask me.
I think this is just for the shares that they are buying swanseola. this money dont go into the club it goes to who has sold their shares and we are not privee to that information. Its a hell of a lot of money for someone or persons involved.
I agree, but if thats the case, why the talk of buying the stadium with it? As that would suggest the £30m is going to the club. It still seems the share values are low, if 30% can be bought for £30m. If it was for say 20% shares, I wouldn't say so much, but I don't like the idea of giving up such a large chuck of the club, for such little value.
This is my worry because then we tie ourselves to these people in terms of loans. If they get bored and demand the money back then where do we stand. I just don't like the idea of minor investment and then loans to move on, just doesnt sit right.
People are getting confused... 1. Investors pay £30m for a 30% share of the company. This is not a loan. This is a purchase. The investors buy their share of the club, become board members, and start using their contacts and sports industry experience to make Swansea City AFC more successful and, as a result, increase the price of SCAFC shares so that in a few years they could sell them for profit if they wanted. 2. We also want the investors to loan us money, not for players, but to finish our training facilities and buy/expand the Liberty Stadium. This would probably be in the region of £50-60m. Why? Because we can't afford to do it now and the current board know that we must strike while the iron is hot. If we can be loaned the money now for infrastructure, we can focus our current money on new players, which will make us more competitive on the pitch and a more attractive club for new players as our training facilities in Fairwood will actually be complete, not a building site. £50-60m over the course of a few years is not that much provided we stay in the Premier League. Heck, even the parachute payments would pay it back even if we did get relegated. The idea is that by focusing our current money on our squad, we'll have a better chance of surviving though. It's a very clever business plan as long as the investors agree with the plan - if they don't agree, we probably won't bring them on board. We don't need owners, we need investment. It allows us to focus our finances on the squad, while the loan allows us to continue with our infrastructure development regardless. Then, by having a better squad, we're more likely to stay in the Premier League which, in turn, will easily pay off the loan in a few simple years. It makes sense.
The Company being Swansea City FC and if you're correct then the club is valued at approx. 100 million ? Would the "investment" be interest free loans ? imo very unlikely then the question should be could the money be raised by borrowing from a financial institute , The Board are pushing for Cat 1 status which is something more for the U21's and below age groups and atm ,Fairwood is adequate but not complete so a swimming pool . Classrooms and axillary storage buildings would need to be added but something which is vital at the present time .? New players meaning more expensive players such as Gomis ? (he will have cost the club a great deal of money by the time he's shipped out ) ,the money would be better spent on employing a larger scouting system . Mentioning parachute payments means that this idea isn't as fool proof and using it as security is a big risk ,that money should be earmarked for what it was designed for otherwise like other clubs who's Boards have dipped in to it then that's the start of a slippery slope and it's only going in one direction. Been thee seen it and read the bloody book Personally I can't see anything clever about this at all , all they'll be will be Board members having a significant control over the Club who then lend money to the a Company they have a vested interest in ,Sounds very familiar to other stories of doom .Why can't the board members who want to sell offer part of their holdings to the Trust at least to see whether there's another Mel Nurse out there who loves the club more than the money .
Looking for financial help off financial institutions is something that I've toyed with in my mind. But we wouldn't get the necessary help and contacts to grow our marketing side that way. That's why an investor is better than a bank. They give you more than just money. Industry experience. It's not similar to other stories of doom because we're not asking them to bankroll us in every area of the company. All the other stories come from new owners, usually with 100% or controlling stakes, buying player upon player in a rat race for success. We would still only be buying players that we can afford with money that we have. The investors' money will only go on infrastructure. Can't you see the difference in situation? I do admit, if they were coming in to pump million after million after billion into the club, I would also be dead against it. As always, we have to trust Huw and the board that they want sensible investment, not a sugar daddy. P.S. I only mentioned the parachute payments as, in a worst case scenario where we get relegated, the debt from my scenario would still be attainable with direct funds that we will have. If we had a sugar daddy owner, we could be hundreds of millions of pounds in debt, and I'm very against this scenario like you are as we would not be able to pay it back. But, unlike you, I actually think that sensible investment with achievable repayment (even if we get relegated) is a good idea to help us finish the training facilities sooner rather than later - which is better for our youth and first team.
1.I am not going to pretend I understand financial matters, But if we want Industry experience. Why cant we employ someone with that experience to help run that side of the club, who has good contacts and knowledge of how to grow the marketing side of things. Surely paying someone with this experience would be better than giving away a large part of the club just to get this. Just so we can put ourselves in debt to them. 2.It could well be the same as other stories of doom (not guarenteed i accept) But we would be playing massive amounts of money back to the investors as part of the loans. Surely this would reduce our money for new players. Is it not possible that they could get bored and call their loans in. 3. Can't you see that they are not comming here for nothing, surely they see it as a money making situation for them and as such financially we must be worse off. 4. I thought parachute payments were there to enable relegated teams (god Forbid) with PL wages to pay players wages when they do not have PL income. So how do we pay the wages as well as the loans. Have you seen landore that is a fantastic centre and the first teams performance will not suffer from training there constantly and having to wait a while for Fairwood to be where it needs to be. I do see your arguement and the possibilities, I just think it is a big risk to take with our club.
1. That is certainly an avenue worth assessing. But that person would not be able to give the financial investment that the club are primarily looking for, the reason why Jack to a King was made. 2. No, they can't just get bored and call their loans in. Loans will come with contracts on repayments - amount of interest, the term of the loan, how much must be repaid annually/monthly. It's up to us to continue to make the payments. If we miss payments, then they can get annoyed. But, as board members, they also have it in their best interests to work hard to increase our global revenue as it will mean that they will see their money again. They can actually actively make sure that we don't miss repayments through how they manage our global marketing and sponsorship. The repayments will not be so large that they will greatly affect our transfer funds. As an example, currently, we may have to split our funds 50/50 (transfer/infrastructure). With investment, our funds will more likely be split 90/10 (transfer/repayment). 3. I never said they were coming here for nothing. They are buying 30% in the club and will use their wealth of experience to see a return on their investment. If they sell their shares, they'll be looking for a profit on their £30m. The loan is not where they will want to make their money, it's their shares. 4. Not from what I know. They are not stipulated as being only for wages. Even if all players are on Championship wages, the club still gets all of their entitled parachute payments. While I accept that Landore is great, that is for the youth team. The first team already train at Fairwood and currently have to travel back and forth between Landore and Fairwood multiple times a day as the facilities that should be at Fairwood are not there. It can't look good for potential new players to see that the first team training ground is a stagnant building site which can't be completed right now as we don't have the money. We'll have to agree to disagree at this point, lads, and I'm ok with that. You all have answers to my points, and I have answers for your points. Whatever happens, we can all agree that as long as Swansea continues to be run correctly with supporter input, we're going to be happy. Good debate, everyone.
Well there seems only one thing for it then get monk and hue signed up on dragons den asap ! Cash and mentoring £50m for 25% of the business seems fair ?
