I wouldn't,,,I would have let the club go into Liquidation and removed from the F. League to non league or even LOW....We deserved what we sow but Credit to the Americans they have worked hard saving the club from going down that path...
That makes no sense , why would a group of individuals spend money on purchasing a football club then walk away because of what ? the running costs , don't forget they have put an additional burden on the Club by buying the lease not Jerkins they also have this years parachute payments and purchased land outside the stadium so walk away, don't talk nonsense , they're here to try and make a return for the 28 who currently own the Club ( I won't use the term investors which I recall was something you were adamant that's want they had done , the records show they haven't " invested a penny" )
The headlines I saw in one of the papers tonight (not sure which one) said "9 OUT OF 10 FANS HAVE LOST FAITH IN THE CLUB" I wonder who the 10th person was ?
They won't just walk away like i wouldn't ....They would take all the assets they own and sell them to some property developer or a supermarket chain or anyone that wants them......I would not worry about the little old club if i was a Multimillionaire i can tell you.....My only aim is to make money and credit to the Americans they are giving the club a go and not running away.....Hope it works out for them and credit to what they have achieved so far...
You haven’t answered the question. Why would the Americans spend 70 million quid on a dead duck? I’ll answer the question for you. They thought they were buying a cash cow. Unfortunately they left the gate open, the cow has gone and they are now left with an empty field. They’re now painting the grass green to try and make their investment a little more attractive. The morale of the story? Never leave a gate open so you don’t have to paint grass. The Yanks are merely painters and decorators.
You have a strange view on investment MBSL. If you bought shares in BT, United Utilities, Barclays or any other company, you have invested in those companies. You wouldn't then give them money out of your pocket. The current owners of the swans have invested their money with the view of a greater return. I agree they haven't pumped any cash into the operating budged, but to say they haven't invested in the club is factually incorrect. I sympathise with fans of the club (though I'm sure you'll say you don't care about my sympathy), but after a number of years of great success, the pendulum has swung. When in the prem, the swans had the greatest percentage of spend on salaries against turnover. They also had the greatest percentage of income from TV revenue. Relegation was always going to have a bigger impact on them than most relegated clubs. Big nose invested in the company wisely (for him) and took his profit. The yanks have invested in the club and will possibly make a loss. If you're looking for a sugar daddy, I feel the yanks are not it but they have certainly invested their money in the club (less wisely than big nose). They need to remember the value of your investments can go down as well as up. If they don't provide a cash injection, they may find the value of their investment could fall faster and further than they would like.
Couple of observations if I may.... Firstly, the Yanks acquired the shares from individuals who had subscribed for shares in the Swans - the so called sell-outs were the ones who actually invested in the Club albeit a relatively small sum. Therefore, the Yanks have not invested in the Club/Company per se they invested their money in the acquisition of the original shareholdings of the sell outs. Not one dime of the Yanks’ money went into the Club. Your analogy of investing in Barclays et al is not strictly a like for like. If you or I hold shares in Barclays - or any publicly traded company - it is unlikely you or I would secure a controlling stake in that Company. The shares held by the Yanks gives them control in a private limited company - it is ‘their’ Company. Majority shareholders in private companies often make loans to their companies.
The difference in share dealings is noted. Listed companies are dealt with by intermediaries or marketmakers who keep the market liquid and are obliged to do so, but both result in share equity being tranfered between investors. The yanks have invested their money in share equity. The "sellouts" did indeed invest, in the same way as the yanks did. They bought an equity share. They then saw that investment grow with your success. Ultimately, they cashed their investment in. The difference was, they bought their share when almost worthless, and they held off until that was the case. Majority shareholders do indeed loan money to the companies they own. That is NOT investment, that is a loan that must be repaid. If they then convert that loan to equity, as Tan is doing, that is further investment.
I agree with a lot of what you state here, except that there has been no investment into the club, and buying out shareholders for control is not the same as buying shares in a listed co on the stock exchange, and Matt is correct they have invested bugger all in the club, but simply purchased a controlling share, though they couldn't even afford that, they had to get undertakingings from selling directors for controlling vote and rights, that's the truth of it all..............................
I’m glad that you accept that the Yanks have invested in buying the shareholdings of private individuals and have not invested in the Club by subscribing directly for shares. If you read my note, I did not say that a loan is an investment - as I clearly state, it is a loan. Hence, not sure why you are using capital letters to say NOT.
I agree that they have invested their money in purchasing a majority share of the club. I also agree that they haven't provided a cash injection into the club. I suppose it comes down to the nuances of using the word "invest". Either way, they have done little to help your club on which we can agree. Do you think the equity holding of the supporters trust complicates the matter? That 20% has a value. If the trust don't invest the proportional amount as the yanks, the yanks are increasing the value of the supporters trust shares without them contributing. From what you say, that is only a hypothetical question as the yanks don't seem to want to (or do not have the capablity to) dip their hands in their pockets.
If there were to be a rights issue, and the Trust didn’t purchase / take up their entitlement, then the Trust’s percentage shareholding would fall
It's a difficult one for the Trust because of the way they were excluded from this boardroom takeover, and the way the original shareholders agreement was broken by the sellouts and it's impact on the Trusts shareholding. The problem the Trust has is actually a matter of trust, how can they fully now trust and have confidence in this boardroom, the deciept still continues to this day........
