God Bless America.........I hope

A bit intriguing that Huw signed a head of terms in December with these guys around the time he flew off to see Bielsa .
I will say this , the Americans offering to buy only 60 % is a sort of olive branch IMO , one we should grab too .
The trust is safe , Guys like Morgan are hopefully out of the picture , Huw has someone to answer to .
I'm in now , the agreement at 60 % says to me these guys want to be part of something

 

The 60% thing is definitely an improvement for sure but like many other fans I'm still very wary.

 

So in light of the takeover and the support last week for our steelworkers there is consideration for the rebranding and becoming the "Swansea Steelers" under our new owners. It is felt that this would market better in the States. This is an indirect quote from sources close to people who new someone that that posted something on a forum somewhere on the internet. So very reliable

 

Oh please. That can't be true.....can it?

 

I think its got quite a nice ring to it !!!

 

**** noooooo!!! The Swans is good enough! How much more US culture do we need to endure.

 

Could they be sold to someone other than the Americans? That may put the cat amongst the pigeons.

 

Swansea steelers.........Now i like that.... But i cant see the FA ever agreeing to that but its a nice thought and has a massive marketing potential here and across the pond....

 

Just came across this on the Planet Swans site:

I accept the report that the Yanks have reduced their minimum requirement of shares from 75.1% to 60%.

I accept the report [from Mr Sumbler, I believe] that some of the present shareholders have agreed to keep their shares but give their voting proxies to the Yanks. [For those of you who do not understand "voting proxy," it means that they would relinquish their right to vote and give that right to the Yanks as if he owned their shares.]

O.K., then, think like "an investor."

The Trust own 21.1% of the shares and need 25% in order to protect their percentage of shares.

It takes 75% to shut the Trust out of certain decisions -- mainly a new share issue which would dilute, or reduce, the effective percentage of Trust ownership.

There are 78.9% of the shares available from which the Yanks can get to 75%.

60% owned plus 15% in voting proxies equals 75 percent. Done.

The real beauty of this dream device is that they get full control of the club with less money laid out, but will still make a killing when they sell if off. Mull that one over.

I didn't start and serve as Chief-in-Chief of my investing company, Dewey, Fukem, & Howe for nothing!

Think like "an investor."

Davillin

 

On the subject of share holders then nobody is going to plough loads of money into any club without the aim of making a profit. Many clubs make a loss as a club but their share holders will always get there whack......Our share holders over the past 10 years have made themselves a nice tidy packet each while the trust has earned nothing and though that was the idea and the reason i joined i assumed that the trust would have more say in things than they actually do....I have lost count of the times i wrote and spoke in meetings about why with 21% of the shares have we not more of a say in everything just like the other shareholders. In my opinion with many other trust members we were getting a raw deal and being ignored by the rest of the board and things were happening behind our backs just like this take over really where talks have been taken place for over 6 months without the trusts knowledge....Are we not share holders too? Well it seems not the way the trust has been treated over the years and i wanted the trust to be involved with everything that goes on in the board room and not just what the other directors would allow and that is not fair and why i and others quit as it was a farce. The idea of the trust with an elected member on the board was not as it seems or what we was led to believe....I hope this changes and the trust gets more involved and have more say or what is the point of it.....

 

The deal should contain a clause ,from all parties , that shares should be shaved off the deal to bring the trust share to 26 % , with a few votes thrown back at the Americans to give them they're control but have a clause that those controlling votes given to the Americans by the trust , can't be used to issue new shares .

 

Sorry but had a couple, but for me tell them to go and F off.

 

Indonesian?

 

If there were any goodwill towards the trust, existing shareholders could have, long ago, gifted the necessary 4%. That they have not is an indication of where their thinking is, as Dai said, the existing shareholders are already well in pocket for their risk from the recent dividend payment. However, to sell less than a controlling interest will mean they receive much less money personally..... assuming they can even find a buyer.

 

I've no idea if this naming thing is true but does anyone remember the fuss over 'Hull Tigers'? The Hull fans were rightly up in arms over that and the footballing authorities agreed with them. Re-naming fundamentally changes the Club. We are known as "The Swans" and always have been as far as I'm aware. Why change it? It's perfectly marketable as it is.

My son was in New York in January and overheard a conversation between an American father and son talking about "The Swans" and they were clearly fans of the Club. Nothing wrong with keeping the name. Besides, it's Port Talbot that has the steelworks. Swansea's history is based on copper. Just saying.

 

The Swansea Coppers?..................

 

It was a piss take

 

Well, a few of them like to use their truncheon......

 

Ah OK. Didn't know it was a piss take. Nothing would surprise me with the Yanks.

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/four-reasons-swansea-city-fans-11207369

Still doesn't convince me.