Swansea have the 19th Highest Wage Bill In Europe!!?!

If my maths are correct, issued 58 days ago. Doubt if a more up to date statement exists at this time.

Thought you said you were off?

27th Dec. my maths tells me that is a lot more recent

http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2016/12/27/ ... ownership/

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Obviously the American investors have no wish to buy the trusts' share holdings. This suggests the trust are in no position to put up any financial resistance to a share dilution. Hence, the search for investment from partners with more financial clout.
This suggests to me a vulnerability with regard to future influence over matters within the club. Can you provide a link which supports your assertation that the trust are more comfortable with their relationship with the majority owners?

If my maths are correct, issued 58 days ago. Doubt if a more up to date statement exists at this time.

Thought you said you were off?

22nd Dec. my maths tells me that is a lot more recent

http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2016/12/27/ ... ownership/

I'll concede that one, I did say I was off. I am now.

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Obviously the American investors have no wish to buy the trusts' share holdings. This suggests the trust are in no position to put up any financial resistance to a share dilution. Hence, the search for investment from partners with more financial clout.
This suggests to me a vulnerability with regard to future influence over matters within the club. Can you provide a link which supports your assertation that the trust are more comfortable with their relationship with the majority owners?

Yep, spot on. And the exact reason that the Americans will not be voting to take a dividend as they will have to pay the Trust. There is an agreement where they will not be issuing more shares for a certain length of time, cant remember if it is 1 or 2 years. Yes there is a link somewhere about the place. Seek and you shall find

Last edited by Capitano on Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2016/12/27/ ... ownership/

I would suggest their concerns are still evident!

http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2016/12/27/trust-board-statement-on-manager-and-ownership/

I would suggest their concerns are still evident!

So would I, as I just told you. Concerns are obviously still there regarding share dillution, and will always be there until something significant changes. Which is why the Americans will not be voting for a dividend. What is your point exactly here?

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Obviously the American investors have no wish to buy the trusts' share holdings. This suggests the trust are in no position to put up any financial resistance to a share dilution. Hence, the search for investment from partners with more financial clout.
This suggests to me a vulnerability with regard to future influence over matters within the club. Can you provide a link which supports your assertation that the trust are more comfortable with their relationship with the majority owners?

this is correct and their trust are shitting it their share percentage is likely to be diluted

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Obviously the American investors have no wish to buy the trusts' share holdings. This suggests the trust are in no position to put up any financial resistance to a share dilution. Hence, the search for investment from partners with more financial clout.
This suggests to me a vulnerability with regard to future influence over matters within the club. Can you provide a link which supports your assertation that the trust are more comfortable with their relationship with the majority owners?

this is correct and their trust are shitting it their share percentage is likely to be diluted

They are not s*itting it at all they are aware they are vulnerable to that, although they do have protection for a certain amount of time. There was talk that if they do create more shares in order to dilute then due to the sale being against the original shareholders agreement, they are able to take legal action to force a sale of their shares in full to the Americans at the original price bought for due to their position being prejudiced. That would also be a good result for the Trust.

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Obviously the American investors have no wish to buy the trusts' share holdings. This suggests the trust are in no position to put up any financial resistance to a share dilution. Hence, the search for investment from partners with more financial clout.
This suggests to me a vulnerability with regard to future influence over matters within the club. Can you provide a link which supports your assertation that the trust are more comfortable with their relationship with the majority owners?

They are shitting it

this is correct and their trust are shitting it their share percentage is likely to be diluted

They are not s*itting it at all they are aware they are vulnerable to that, although they do have protection for a certain amount of time. There was talk that if they do create more shares in order to dilute then due to the sale being against the original shareholders agreement, they are able to take legal action to force a sale of their shares in full to the Americans at the original price bought for due to their position being prejudiced. That would also be a good result for the Trust.

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

You still have not provided any evidence for your assertation for the relationship between the trust and the ownership of the club. Considering the trust has changed position from a significant owner of shares in the club into a minority share holder

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Obviously the American investors have no wish to buy the trusts' share holdings. This suggests the trust are in no position to put up any financial resistance to a share dilution. Hence, the search for investment from partners with more financial clout.
This suggests to me a vulnerability with regard to future influence over matters within the club. Can you provide a link which supports your assertation that the trust are more comfortable with their relationship with the majority owners?

They are shitting it

this is correct and their trust are shitting it their share percentage is likely to be diluted

They are not s*itting it at all they are aware they are vulnerable to that, although they do have protection for a certain amount of time. There was talk that if they do create more shares in order to dilute then due to the sale being against the original shareholders agreement, they are able to take legal action to force a sale of their shares in full to the Americans at the original price bought for due to their position being prejudiced. That would also be a good result for the Trust.

There is nothing to s*it as you would put it. They either retain their share holding or force a sale for over £20m. Either have always been viable options as a forward path for the Trust, many members indeed are in favour of selling as they feel the cash will out them in a position of strength for the future where they could essentially own 100% of the club.

You still have not provided any evidence for your assertation for the relationship between the trust and the ownership of the club. Considering the trust has changed position from a significant owner of shares in the club into a minority share holder

I don't need to provide any evidence (although believe it may happen to actually be in the last link I so patiently provided). It is common knowledge and documented in a few places. Do the donkey work if that interested, don't expect everything handed on a plate. Read up on it and come back for a debate, Ill be here

Last edited by Capitano on Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Obviously the American investors have no wish to buy the trusts' share holdings. This suggests the trust are in no position to put up any financial resistance to a share dilution. Hence, the search for investment from partners with more financial clout.
This suggests to me a vulnerability with regard to future influence over matters within the club. Can you provide a link which supports your assertation that the trust are more comfortable with their relationship with the majority owners?

They are shitting it

this is correct and their trust are shitting it their share percentage is likely to be diluted

They are not s*itting it at all they are aware they are vulnerable to that, although they do have protection for a certain amount of time. There was talk that if they do create more shares in order to dilute then due to the sale being against the original shareholders agreement, they are able to take legal action to force a sale of their shares in full to the Americans at the original price bought for due to their position being prejudiced. That would also be a good result for the Trust.

There is nothing to s*it as you would put it. They either retain their share holding or force a sale for over £20m. Either have always been viable options as a forward path for the Trust, many members indeed are in favour of selling as they feel the cash will out them in a position of strength for the future where they could essentially own 100% of the club.

Exactly how do they force a sale? Levine seems quite content to let them seek alternative buyers!

You still have not provided any evidence for your assertation for the relationship between the trust and the ownership of the club. Considering the trust has changed position from a significant owner of shares in the club into a minority share holder

I don't need to provide any evidence (although believe it may happen to actually be in the last link I so patiently provided). It is common knowledge and documented in a few places. Do the donkey work if that interested, don't expect everything handed on a plate. Read up on it and come back for a debate, Ill be here

Where exactly does he say that in the last link? We are dealing in facts are we not?

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Obviously the American investors have no wish to buy the trusts' share holdings. This suggests the trust are in no position to put up any financial resistance to a share dilution. Hence, the search for investment from partners with more financial clout.
This suggests to me a vulnerability with regard to future influence over matters within the club. Can you provide a link which supports your assertation that the trust are more comfortable with their relationship with the majority owners?

They are shitting it

this is correct and their trust are shitting it their share percentage is likely to be diluted

They are not s*itting it at all they are aware they are vulnerable to that, although they do have protection for a certain amount of time. There was talk that if they do create more shares in order to dilute then due to the sale being against the original shareholders agreement, they are able to take legal action to force a sale of their shares in full to the Americans at the original price bought for due to their position being prejudiced. That would also be a good result for the Trust.

There is nothing to s*it as you would put it. They either retain their share holding or force a sale for over £20m. Either have always been viable options as a forward path for the Trust, many members indeed are in favour of selling as they feel the cash will out them in a position of strength for the future where they could essentially own 100% of the club.

Exactly how do they force a sale? Levine seems quite content to let them seek alternative buyers!

By taking legal action against the original sale which breached the shareholders agreement. That is the action taken in cases such as this. But finding other buyers is also something that essentially does the same thing.

You still have not provided any evidence for your assertation for the relationship between the trust and the ownership of the club. Considering the trust has changed position from a significant owner of shares in the club into a minority share holder

I don't need to provide any evidence (although believe it may happen to actually be in the last link I so patiently provided). It is common knowledge and documented in a few places. Do the donkey work if that interested, don't expect everything handed on a plate. Read up on it and come back for a debate, Ill be here

Where exactly does he say that in the last link? We are dealing in facts are we not?

Say what?

You still have not provided any evidence for your assertation for the relationship between the trust and the ownership of the club. Considering the trust has changed position from a significant owner of shares in the club into a minority share holder

I don't need to provide any evidence (although believe it may happen to actually be in the last link I so patiently provided). It is common knowledge and documented in a few places. Do the donkey work if that interested, don't expect everything handed on a plate. Read up on it and come back for a debate, Ill be here

YOUR trust has taken legal advice and decided AGAINST legal action

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Where does he say that about the relationship? I would suggest that he in no way makes that assertion!

You still have not provided any evidence for your assertation for the relationship between the trust and the ownership of the club. Considering the trust has changed position from a significant owner of shares in the club into a minority share holder

I don't need to provide any evidence (although believe it may happen to actually be in the last link I so patiently provided). It is common knowledge and documented in a few places. Do the donkey work if that interested, don't expect everything handed on a plate. Read up on it and come back for a debate, Ill be here

YOUR trust has taken legal advice and decided AGAINST legal action

I don't have a Trust, but Swansea Trust have not decided against legal action. It is always an option, but they don't feel it is the right time at the moment. And I agree.

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Where does he say that about the relationship? I would suggest that he in no way makes that assertion!

Say what about the relationship?

Funny how Roathie asks for proof if someone on here makes an unsubstantiated statement, but cannot provide proof or a link when asked by other forum users. Could it be that he is talking out of his backside as usual.

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Where does he say that about the relationship? I would suggest that he in no way makes that assertion!

Say what about the relationship?

You have stated quite clearly "the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvement in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime"

Where is your evidence for this? You dealin facts do you not? This is open, honest debate, that you claim to be such a champion of. Please deal in facts honestly and openly as you so elequently advocate.

Where as the trust chairman stated this?

You still have not provided any evidence for your assertation for the relationship between the trust and the ownership of the club. Considering the trust has changed position from a significant owner of shares in the club into a minority share holder

I don't need to provide any evidence (although believe it may happen to actually be in the last link I so patiently provided). It is common knowledge and documented in a few places. Do the donkey work if that interested, don't expect everything handed on a plate. Read up on it and come back for a debate, Ill be here

YOUR trust has taken legal advice and decided AGAINST legal action

I don't have a Trust, but Swansea Trust have not decided against legal action. It is always an option, but they don't feel it is the right time at the moment. And I agree.

yes ive decided to not take legal action against euro millions { coz ive not won}. but its always an option
beaut

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Where does he say that about the relationship? I would suggest that he in no way makes that assertion!

Say what about the relationship?

You have stated quite clearly "the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvement in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime"

Where is your evidence for this? You dealin facts do you not? This is open, honest debate, that you claim to be such a champion of. Please deal in facts honestly and openly as you so elequently advocate.

Where as the trust chairman stated this?

Yes he did say it. It is a fact. It is an open and honest discussion. Doesn't mean I have to do all the donkey searching work. If you don't wish to take my word for it then feel free, no skin off my nose. You will then have to settle for being misinformed and as a result probably form an opinion of which I will feel compelled to disagree with based on fact (whether you wish to accept that fact or not)

yes ive decided to not take legal action against euro millions { coz ive not won}. but its always an option
beaut

My word really? The Trust HAVE been prejudiced, the sale went through against the signed shareholders agreement. You have not been prejudiced by not winning a raffle

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Where does he say that about the relationship? I would suggest that he in no way makes that assertion!

Say what about the relationship?

You have stated quite clearly "the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvement in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime"

Where is your evidence for this? You dealin facts do you not? This is open, honest debate, that you claim to be such a champion of. Please deal in facts honestly and openly as you so elequently advocate.

Where as the trust chairman stated this?

Yes he did say it. It is a fact. It is an open and honest discussion. Doesn't mean I have to do all the donkey searching work. If you don't wish to take my word for it then feel free, no skin off my nose. You will then have to settle for being misinformed and as a result probably form an opinion of which I will feel compelled to disagree with based on fact (whether you wish to accept that fact or not)

Surely, all well informed and educate debate is based on factual evidence that can be sourced. Resorting to incidental remarks you may or not have heard or been made negates the authority of your argument. Do you have evidence he made that statement? If you do not have any evidence that he did then surely any intelligent person would classify it as hearsay with not weight or authority.

I am interested I facts as the basis of opinion! Are you not?

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Where does he say that about the relationship? I would suggest that he in no way makes that assertion!

Say what about the relationship?

You have stated quite clearly "the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvement in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime"

Where is your evidence for this? You dealin facts do you not? This is open, honest debate, that you claim to be such a champion of. Please deal in facts honestly and openly as you so elequently advocate.

Where as the trust chairman stated this?

Yes he did say it. It is a fact. It is an open and honest discussion. Doesn't mean I have to do all the donkey searching work. If you don't wish to take my word for it then feel free, no skin off my nose. You will then have to settle for being misinformed and as a result probably form an opinion of which I will feel compelled to disagree with based on fact (whether you wish to accept that fact or not)

Surely, all well informed and educate debate is based on factual evidence that can be sourced. Resorting to incidental remarks you may or not have heard or been made negates the authority of your argument. Do you have evidence he made that statement? If you do not have any evidence that he did then surely any intelligent person would classify it as hearsay with not weight or authority.

I am interested I facts as the basis of opinion! Are you not?

This is based on factual evidence that can be sourced. I have not resorted to incidental remarks that I have heard, it is documented and well known. Any intelligent person would do their groundwork before making an informed decision rather than demanding evidence and not willing to do any of the research himself. If everybody refused to research then the majority of things would exist as fact but yet be unproven.

Am I interested in the facts of which I base my opinion? No. I haven't used the fact that the chairman of the Trust factually stated that lines of communication are far better now than they were under the old shareholders to back or form any opinion, that statement of fact stands for itself. It is now down to you to accept that fact (and research if you must) or decline to believe the factual common knowledge... But that will then affect the quality of your opinion of course.

You are a man who deals in facts apparently. Have they released a more current statement about their position regarding their position as shareholders? If they have could you please post a link?

No idea, however the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvment in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime. Concerns over share dillution are of course still there however and while this is always an option they will clearly never vote for a dividend. Hence my point.

Where does he say that about the relationship? I would suggest that he in no way makes that assertion!

Say what about the relationship?

You have stated quite clearly "the Trust chairman has commented that relationships and involvement in the club is in a better place than it ever was under the old regime"

Where is your evidence for this? You dealin facts do you not? This is open, honest debate, that you claim to be such a champion of. Please deal in facts honestly and openly as you so elequently advocate.

Where as the trust chairman stated this?

Yes he did say it. It is a fact. It is an open and honest discussion. Doesn't mean I have to do all the donkey searching work. If you don't wish to take my word for it then feel free, no skin off my nose. You will then have to settle for being misinformed and as a result probably form an opinion of which I will feel compelled to disagree with based on fact (whether you wish to accept that fact or not)

Surely, all well informed and educate debate is based on factual evidence that can be sourced. Resorting to incidental remarks you may or not have heard or been made negates the authority of your argument. Do you have evidence he made that statement? If you do not have any evidence that he did then surely any intelligent person would classify it as hearsay with not weight or authority.

I am interested I facts as the basis of opinion! Are you not?

This is based on factual evidence that can be sourced. I have not resorted to incidental remarks that I have heard, it is documented and well known. Any intelligent person would do their groundwork before making an informed decision rather than demanding evidence and not willing to do any of the research himself. If everybody refused to research then the majority of things would exist as fact but yet be unproven.

Am I interested in the facts of which I base my opinion? No. I haven't used the fact that the chairman of the Trust factually stated that lines of communication are far better now than they were under the old shareholders to back or form any opinion, that statement of fact stands for itself. It is now down to you to accept that fact (and research if you must) or decline to believe the factual common knowledge... But that will then affect the quality of your opinion of course.

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

Swansea board to take them to the next level http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/s ... -c4nts!/#7

What a happy lot #shaftedbytheirown

So your facts have no evid nice to support them? How can any statement of fact stand for itself if there is no evidence of it being made? So you believe if you state something it must automatically be accepted as fact by other posters?

Evidence is always the quality assurance of proof! Do you have evidence for assertions? If not they are not facts! That is widely recognised as the burden of proof! Do you not agree?

My facts have every quality assured proof you could wish to have hence it is a commonly known fact. No, I never have proof of assertions, so try to not make them. Do I agree what? That if someone wants to prove something to someone that the burden of proof is on them? Yes absolutely. But I don't think I have ever tried to convince you have I? I have been clear of the factual commonly known statement and stated that it is completely up to you whether to accept said obvious commonly known fact or not. It is your opinion that it will affect the quality of, not mine