The Trust has found itself in a very unwanted and serious position. Firstly it now realises that it has no legal powers whatsoever to stop so called investors acquiring shares in the club, even though they are directly opposed to the intrusion. Secondly they must now realise that the future of the Trust lies in the hands of those investors ,for without the necessary number of shares to stop future special resolutions, any future impact into a shareholders agreement would be limited . Whilst they insist that the retension of their shareholding percentage is not for discussion , they must now realise that the present percentage holding could be watered down at any time in the future and that there is virtually nothing that they could do about it. Indeed if the proposed acquisition is on a pro rata basis amongst the other shareholders, their attitude, however justified on an ethical basis, means that they are actually passing on their share worth perhaps £7m for a 30% sale to the other shareholders. The Trust might not have been in this position if they had not been so indifferent to Company Law requirements in the past. When the Trust was formed it is fair to say that the original investors including the Trust were intent only on saving the club.It would therefore I probably have been the ideal time to have ensured the 25% plus shareholding.This therefore was the first opportunity that was missed. The second opportunity was at the time that the Trust Board representative L A J Dineen acquired his 25% for £50,000. Surely the same opportunity must have existed for the Trust at that time, but I can remember no effort being made by the Trust ie the members were not approached to raise the necessary money The next occasion was at the time of the sale of the Mel Nurse shares.This is clouded in mystery and has never been properly explained.It is obviously sad that Mel had the exact 5% for sale that the Trust needed. Perhaps a more aggressive approach at this time ,and at least some publicity about it,would have succeeded. Also I have it on good authority that about five to six years ago at the time of the new investment ,a shareholders agreement was drawn up but not proceeded with.Surely at that time safeguards regarding the Trust's position could have been enforced at that time. It has been pointed out on this forum that the Trust's representatives on the Board have perhaps been too comfortable, the suggestion that it has been in their own interests to be quiet and not active. It does on reflection seem very strange that the Trusts first main representative bought shares for himself and did not pursue any Trust acquisition. This was at a time when the Club had been promoted to the first division and had transferred to the Liberty. A time of good crowds and when former investment to save the club could then have been viewed in a completely different light. These therefore are the questions that should be addressed to the Trust members on Friday. Is the initial acquisition of shares by the American investors to selected investors only ,or on a pro rata basis. If on a pro rata basis is the Trust making the correct commercial decision in not selling their pro rata 7% Leading from that question, if the value of an individual 1% share is now approx £1m what logical hope is there for the Trust to ever acquire the extra 5% that it needs to ensure its future. When did the members of the Trust realise the value of having a 25% share rather than a 20% share In retrospect has it been a good idea to have elected Board representatives that have had personal interests in Swansea football club. Why didn't the Trust push to acquire the extra shares at the time of Dineens acquisition Why didn't the Trust push harder to acquire Mel Nurse's shares Why didn't the trust safeguard it's position through a shareholders agreement when the opportunity arose. I think those are enough for the moment! I never wrote this.........
Dai, there are a number of issues/concerns that have left the majority of us on here sitting very very uncomfortable at the moment (myself included). Given what happened 10-13 years ago, we have every right to be concerned, especially with the stuff Phil and Project have posted today/last night. Nothing pathetic about it.
We can see you where never the author Dai, it's far too comprehensive and rational for you, not to mention objective!.....................
I'm sorry but there's too much flying around about these characters for at least some of it not to be true. If you're an upstanding business person that does things the right way you don't get a reputation like they have. Maybe an odd indiscretion here or there but not this. Sorry but if you think these people are what we need then you're sticking your head in the sand.
Sorry to butt in since this is something for you guys. But the Dai recent post (not his, for sure...too lucid and logical!) indicates some problems when the Trust representative buys a percentage of the club in his own right and then, presumably, continues to represent the Trust and himself? But maybe the question asked should be exactly who is selling their shares to this Moores blokey? That is, who is personally benefitting and handing his shareholding to someone else? I seem to recall that most of those who initially invested got the best part (if not all) back from dividends paid out? One could suggest that those who have made a lot out of this new deal could do worse than sell a whack for money and give a few shares to the Trust t bring them up to the 25% that gives them a better grip on the future.
Firstly,where's the "investment" when all that we know so far is that it's an exchange of shares for massive profit to the sellers? Secondly these new shareholders will want a quick return on their outlay,so it would be to our disadvantage to subsequently borrow money from them. Once this happens our fate is in their hands,we spend the borrowed money and then possibly do a QPR/Norwich/Cardiff and get relegated with huge debts. The "investors" will pull out and scavenge the assets to recover their money and leave us with huge debts and up the creek without a paddle. Meanwhile our original investors from the Petty era will be on their yachts in the Med,sipping champagne in the sun and savouring their multi millions in the bank,tut tutting as they light their cigars,because as a result of their greed we've done a Portsmouth. Maybe then they will have a tiny bit of remorse that they'd blocked the Trust trying to purchase the 5% of shares needed to veto the sale in the first place.
Petty (no pun intended) jealousies are rife at the moment. If shareholder want to sell for any reason that's up to them. Without them we Saturday's game could be against Welling United rather than Manchester United. Maybe the move is aimed at buying out the Liberty (or promise to) before the naming rights come up for grabs in the summer.
And if these Americans follow the status quo of American owners in this league, it won't be long before we end up back at these grounds. Let's be honest, the information posted by Phil and Project suggest at least one of these have a worse track record than the Glazers.
I think that these questions will be asked at the Trust meeting this Friday but also I will be asking what needs to be done to secure the Trusts position before this deal goes through, and what pressure can be brought to bare on the out going directors to secure the Trusts position for the long term security of the club, no board room director if he is a genuine Swans supporter will want to work against the Trust's position, and these issues are surely what the Jack Army will want rightly resolved. Just because mistakes have been made in the past, does not mean that these mistakes cannot be put right by all concerned, and they should be, it will also be an indicater of the amicable disposition of out board, it will also give us a temperature of the greed on the Swansea Board…………..
"Petty jealousies" Are you for real or what? Got nothing to do with that whatsoever, get real man and take a shower, and then come back and talk…………..
I would rather be at those grounds knowing the owners of the club are here because of the club and not just to take us for a ride and make money out of us. I am totally anti this and will be happy to see where we end up under ownership as we are now. If that means league 2 and a club that belongs to the city then so be it.
Two issues here - 1) Americans and those named in particular getting their grubby hands on our club. Not wanted. 2) Some of the posts on here are expressing 'petty jealousies' in the way posters are laying into those who have put their money where their mouths were and have taken the club on an amazing journey. If they want to cash in, donate shares or hand them over to charity they are within their rights so to do. For those who just had a go at me - get over yourselves and read what is written. At no point have I written anything to support the Americans and fear for our future if that happens. You want your own way as long as someone else is paying.
Can anyone tell me, the directors who are supposedly selling their interests are they paid or unpaid directors.
Petty jealousies is not the issue. Firstly it isn't as if they spent maga money on securing the club, and by their own admission wouldn't have succeeded without the help of the fans and particularly the Supporters Trust. They have already received substantial profits on thier initial investments in dividends that no one can deny them. Huw Jenkins also draws a substantial salary from the club for his work. Should they be entitled to the £30 million for their shares, not in my opinion. If they sell then they should take out their initial investment with a healthy profit and plough the rest back into the club. After all they've always promoted the fact that all they wanted is what's best for Swansea City. I'm sorry to say they've had their heads turned by these yanks, it's not petty jealousy at all it's getting what's best for the club we all love. They may legally own the club but it's the fans that's put the club where it is today.
No swans fan will want any suspicious characters to become share holders especially holding the largest amount of shares that im sure of but the fact is we dont have any say in the matter if certain board members (minimum of two and could be more) cashing in to make a healthy profit for themselves as they deserve it for securing the club and putting us on a steady financial footing while rising up the leagues to the top division and With us being in the premiership for 4 years tells me they have run the club very well. I cannot believe for one second that any decision they make will not be for the interest of the club and further development. It has become obvious that even that we have money more than we could ever dream of is still not enough to maintain our premiership status and i fully believe that no shareholder will leave the club and will continue to work hard in keeping the club financially sound. .With these two extra shareholders on board it will allow us to buy better players and we certainly need them plus the possibility of buying and expanding the liberty ( I prefer to build a new stadium) and all the other project's that are taking place while not ruining our financial policy. I would be mortified if the board has put the club at risk and as i know most of them to talk to i cant see that being the case.....
How can this be, all we are going to do is actually borrow money from them. they aren't investing a penny in to the club, so in real terms surely we will be worse off, if they loan us money we will have to pay it back and then be in the red. Cant see how that benefits us in anyway.
