Great analysis, and very revealing regarding the stewardship from the **** boardroom we have had before and after the sale, there is no transparency regarding none playing staff wages, and that's the big hole in the accounts as I see it.
Just the start
- Thread starter Matthew Bound Still Lurks
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Great analysis, and very revealing regarding the stewardship from the **** boardroom we have had before and after the sale, there is no transparency regarding none playing staff wages, and that's the big hole in the accounts as I see it.
Very good analysis and it becomes evident that the club has always had to trade well in he transfer market to maintain viability. Laudrup seemed to manage it...or he was lucky....but it has gone tits up since. I note the huge drop in TV income......it is more like 60 million than the 45 or so that used to be occasionally bandied about. Hence the fire sales and need to offload any other young players that are coming through and showing promise. Can't see any way out for the Yanks either....and certainly no cash for them to filch. I'd love to see the prospectus or document they were attracted with. 100 million valuation implies 12 to 16 million profit if one uses a profit measure of worth. That might have attracted the hedge fund, which I read somewhere was looking for an investment to lift the average sine their other investments were going Pete Tong. Must admit I have no reference for the last statement but I am sure I saw it somewhere...maybe Taff or Mr Bound might remember?
Yes all you stated is correct, especially the last bit, we were seen as a vehicle to balance their failing portfolio spread............
Don’t forget, even the Dollar:Sterling exchange rate has gone against them.
They paid £75m for a 68% stake in the Club - that was $109m
If they sold their shares in the the Club today for that same £75m (and it’s definitely not worth anywhere near that!) - they’d receive only $97m
So a $12m exchange rate loss.
They’d have to sell their stake for £85m to break even! That’s a valuation of £125m for the Club compared with £110m when they bought it.
Looks like the yanks didn't do their due diligence before jumping into bed with Jenkins.
A number of those ratios have been discussed here before the yanks became involved.
Knowing the impact relegation would have (a risk when they bought in), they either didn't check, or Jenkins did a good sell.
I've no issue with the yanks getting burned, but through no fault of the fans, they are the ones suffering.
Read that yesterday, the conclusion is the important bit:
Swansea are in a tricky position, they have not invested in the playing squad since relegation and are using player sales and parachute payments as a means of generating cash. Matchday prices have been reduced to try to ensure that attendances do not fall significantly but the club appears to be budgeting for life as a Championship club rather than gambling on a quick return to the Premier League.
The club’s business model in the Premier League was a dangerous one, spending more on wages than their peers worked for a while, but some poor managerial and player choices had led to a fire sale and a desperate need to get players off the wage bill now the club are in the Championship.
Kaplan and Levien’s motives for running the club are mysterious. They appear to want Swansea to be self-financing, which is understandable to a degree, but having spent £70 million buying control in the club in 2016 it is difficult to see how they will get their money back as the club is likely to be valued at half that sum or less outside of the Premier League.
It’s probable that their aim was to generate some income from dividend payments from the club whilst it was in the Premier League or alternatively flip the club and sell it on to another ‘investor’ with the moral compass of an alleycat for a handsome profit, but neither has materialised to date.
The Championship is a bear pit of a division, with clubs averaging trading losses of £330,000 a week, which have to be funded somehow. Player sales can only assist here for a limited time as ultimately the pool of players who can be sold at a profit diminishes as wage levels fall.
Huw Jenkins’ cryptic comments and the silence from the owners suggests that finance-based arguments led to his resignation and fans are no doubt fully aware of the profit that Jenkins made when selling his stake in the club in 2016 (and the £4 million of dividends paid to shareholders prior to that).
Good governance for any business requires transparency and honest communication and these both appear to be in short supply in SA1 at present.