| What do you choose? 06:28 - Mar 15 with 3127 views | Dr_Parnassus |
It’s an easy one for me, but just wanted to get the consensus.
1) Lose 1-0 against Bournemouth and then beat Cardiff 3-0 and do the first ever double.
2) Beat Bournemouth 1-0 and draw against Cardiff 0-0 failing to do the double.
Would anyone choose option 1? |  |
| |  |
| What do you choose? on 16:54 - Mar 15 with 843 views | Fireboy2 |
| What do you choose? on 14:21 - Mar 15 by Flashberryjack |
Option 2 for me, the best way to hurt the scum fans is win promotion, that would be the hardest pill for them to swallow. |
Good point, well made. |  | | |
| What do you choose? on 17:13 - Mar 15 with 828 views | demonk |
Easy one got to be 1
Think about it next few yrs we might go up,might not so
The 1st team to do double will stand in record books
Even if they do the double over us a couple times in next
few years it wouldn't matter cos we were the 1st to do it.
The bragging rights will last for yrs to come. |  | | |
| What do you choose? on 19:04 - Mar 15 with 805 views | Gwyn737 |
| What do you choose? on 14:21 - Mar 15 by Flashberryjack |
Option 2 for me, the best way to hurt the scum fans is win promotion, that would be the hardest pill for them to swallow. |
Same for me.
Defiantly option 2. | | | |
| What do you choose? on 19:13 - Mar 15 with 793 views | Chief |
| What do you choose? on 16:54 - Mar 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust is a bad owner because it has no money. They cannot help out in a time of crisis and their contribution to the club is largely symbolic. If the club goes bust they will largely have been a bit of a waste of time. "Protecting the club" is empty rhetoric.
The stadium expansion would have been a great ideal if Swansea get back to the premier league. This could be reality this August. The CLN exists as confirmed by Trust dignittaries. The Trust will be diluted over the next few years and this is a good thing. |
Presumably you must think it was poor business for the majority owners not plough on with stadium expansion too then? As you say we could be reaping the benefits of it soon. The trust would only be contributing 21% max of the costs if they'd agreed to the 2017 proposal, but the Americans still didn't go ahead with it.
Again, there's no evidence of this note you keep going on about. You read it in article about regarding governments taking part ownership of company's&now you're convinced its happening to us, of which there's no evidence and no one's confirmed that. As it stands, its purely a loan, that could be converted later. No guarantee of that whatsoever.
There's the little matter of a court case to contend with, that although delayed will surely commence prior to any dilution (5 years was mentioned on that). So no, dilution may not happen, because the trust may not have any holding to dilute.
So more myths busted. Stick to the subject. |  |
| |
| What do you choose? on 21:29 - Mar 15 with 765 views | AndyCole |
Clever, Dr_P.
A trick question, a step too far for too many it seems. | |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
| |
| What do you choose? on 22:17 - Mar 15 with 751 views | Fireboy2 |
| What do you choose? on 21:29 - Mar 15 by AndyCole |
Clever, Dr_P.
A trick question, a step too far for too many it seems. |
Well quite a few have answered and ateotd it has turned into a decent topic to discuss.
Until you came along that is. | | | |
| What do you choose? on 22:34 - Mar 15 with 743 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What do you choose? on 15:30 - Mar 15 by LittleEnglandJack |
Haha, gave me a good chuckle that.
By favouring a guaranteed 1st ever derby double over 1 extra point (that on the balance of probabilities is pretty unlikely to be the difference between us finishing 2nd or not) I've made half the staff redundant, sold our best players and downgraded our academy.
 |
Fine margins LEJ. There is a very real possibility of Swansea city not going up directly one goal difference. I am fairly sure it has happened before. Every point is vital.
Fans should not view their achievements based on how theuy are viewed by their closest rivals. Competition is good onbsession with the rivals is not. Some one saying on here option 2 "because that would hurt them more" is plain daft. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| What do you choose? on 23:05 - Mar 15 with 728 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What do you choose? on 19:13 - Mar 15 by Chief |
Presumably you must think it was poor business for the majority owners not plough on with stadium expansion too then? As you say we could be reaping the benefits of it soon. The trust would only be contributing 21% max of the costs if they'd agreed to the 2017 proposal, but the Americans still didn't go ahead with it.
Again, there's no evidence of this note you keep going on about. You read it in article about regarding governments taking part ownership of company's&now you're convinced its happening to us, of which there's no evidence and no one's confirmed that. As it stands, its purely a loan, that could be converted later. No guarantee of that whatsoever.
There's the little matter of a court case to contend with, that although delayed will surely commence prior to any dilution (5 years was mentioned on that). So no, dilution may not happen, because the trust may not have any holding to dilute.
So more myths busted. Stick to the subject. |
Expanding the stadium is good business. It keeps the club on the same level as the club down the road in the battle for the minds and soul of local South Wales football loving youth. The CCS is bigger than the Liberty. The expansion will easily pay for itself given the prospect of naming rights.
The cost reported was £20m shared by US and Welsh investors. The US investors were keen to buy the Trust s shares to allow them to contribute in the investment and benefit fully from it. The plan was to buy 10% or so of the trust s shares over 5 years. The Trust would therefor only have to contribute about 10% of the cost not the 21%.
You have got into a mother of a muddle regarding the CLN. I do not know where you got the idea the Government was involved. The CLN is confirmed. The loan will be converted for sure as the US owners have given Silverstein a place on the board. It is simply a matter of timing. Mr Winter quoted the CLN himself in his message to the fans. It suggests the investment / CLN was around £10m. Nothing in life is guarenteed.
As we speak there is no court case. It makes no economic sense at a with the club so close to a return to the PL. Burnley was sold for anything between £170m -£200m with an antquated stadium. [Post edited 15 Mar 2021 23:07]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| What do you choose? on 23:36 - Mar 15 with 708 views | DJack |
| What do you choose? on 14:24 - Mar 15 by raynor94 |
Would hurt them more than a double |
This.
IF we did the double over them they would use Covid (lack of crowds etc) as the excuse.
Option 2 is the only sensible option. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| What do you choose? on 09:32 - Mar 16 with 686 views | johnlangy |
no. | | | |
| What do you choose? on 13:19 - Mar 16 with 658 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What do you choose? on 23:19 - Mar 15 by Chief |
A half empty stadium is not good business. How all of a sudden are we going to sell naming rights again!?
Yes so what's stopped the Americans doing this by themselves if the Trust's involvement was only to the tune of £2mill then? These savvy experienced investors should be able to source that kind of cash themselves shouldn't they?
Has anyone - Winter, Trust, Americans, Silverstein stated that this arrangement is on a CLN basis? No. You've read and posted that article, which profiled a mechanism that governments were using to loan businesses money fast under certain circumstances. There is no evidence that any note has been issued in this case. Just media cleansed words, no guarantees. At present its purely a loan with no legal bind to turn it into equity. Which is how it differs from an actual CLN that you love to quote about. All we have is a loan and words.
Are you saying board members cannot be removed? There are other board members who do not possess a stake in the club. Means absolutely nothing.
Just because you have your Burnley logic it doesn't mean the court case isn't going ahead. I know you choose to bury your head in the sand, but I'll just reiterate that the body bringing the case state that preparations for it are still ongoing and are productive. So how you gleam from that that its not happening its bizarre!
|
I hope the US people do do it by themsleves. They could bring in even more outside investors to help them with this. You know what that means Chief?. If they do it in the Championship the Trusts holding could be savagely diluted to around 12%-15%.
Far better for the Trust to change their mentality and look to cash in their chips at the right time to a manageable holding. 5% ideal.
Winter stated EXPLICITLY the £5m listed in the Companies House notification matched the Silverstein CLN. Its not debateable. You are brainwashed. Your forum buddies said the US people would never invest. It looks like £10m if it is a 50:50 match. They have injected money into the club for the club's use with no Welsh contribution it seems. When times are hard you can rely on Uncle Sam, not the locals. I realise its a bitter pill for you to accept.
Putting people on the Board is upto the majority owners. Companies often have 'non excective directors' who might not own any shares. They might have certain specialisties in working in Africa for example and bring certain skills and networking possibilitites.
I want the Trust to crack on. Legal action is a lose / lose if Swansea do well. A win/win if Swansea fall down the leagues. If a fan thinks Swansea is doomed they should support legal action. I actuallly think the club will do fine under US leadership so the Trust s legal action is unwise.
The CLN is a body blow for legal action supporters as the US people are putting money into the club and the supporters of legal action said they were asset strippers and would never put their own money into the club. This is why you are very keen that it is a simple loan. I prefer it to be in new shares as Isupport investment in the club and it will presumably avoid the 5% interest charges. This depends on the causes in the deal. Actual cash investment would clearly be looked on kindly in court if it ever got to that.
Please advise me if you want me to cut and paste Winters comments to prove the money injection was a CLN.. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| What do you choose? on 13:39 - Mar 16 with 645 views | Chief |
| What do you choose? on 13:19 - Mar 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I hope the US people do do it by themsleves. They could bring in even more outside investors to help them with this. You know what that means Chief?. If they do it in the Championship the Trusts holding could be savagely diluted to around 12%-15%.
Far better for the Trust to change their mentality and look to cash in their chips at the right time to a manageable holding. 5% ideal.
Winter stated EXPLICITLY the £5m listed in the Companies House notification matched the Silverstein CLN. Its not debateable. You are brainwashed. Your forum buddies said the US people would never invest. It looks like £10m if it is a 50:50 match. They have injected money into the club for the club's use with no Welsh contribution it seems. When times are hard you can rely on Uncle Sam, not the locals. I realise its a bitter pill for you to accept.
Putting people on the Board is upto the majority owners. Companies often have 'non excective directors' who might not own any shares. They might have certain specialisties in working in Africa for example and bring certain skills and networking possibilitites.
I want the Trust to crack on. Legal action is a lose / lose if Swansea do well. A win/win if Swansea fall down the leagues. If a fan thinks Swansea is doomed they should support legal action. I actuallly think the club will do fine under US leadership so the Trust s legal action is unwise.
The CLN is a body blow for legal action supporters as the US people are putting money into the club and the supporters of legal action said they were asset strippers and would never put their own money into the club. This is why you are very keen that it is a simple loan. I prefer it to be in new shares as Isupport investment in the club and it will presumably avoid the 5% interest charges. This depends on the causes in the deal. Actual cash investment would clearly be looked on kindly in court if it ever got to that.
Please advise me if you want me to cut and paste Winters comments to prove the money injection was a CLN.. |
If you completely ignore the court case yes and its potential outcome yes. Proves the point the case is entirely justified. Plus Jenkins and Morgan etc would be diluted too.
How are they going to get to 5% then? Is this another of your fantastical plans that aren't realistically going to happen?
You are completely missing the point. There's no dispute that Silverstein and the Americans have loaned money to the club. Can you show me evidence that a 'Convertible loan note' has been issued alongside this?
Well let's not get carried away, all it is so far is a loan. That's very different to an investment. Well i suppose its no risk no lose investment for the Americans who'll make money off this. As it stands the club has to pay this back.
Not sure why you've lumped me in with people who want them to invest. I've always been clear that i don't want their money or to be in their pocket.
You still obviously don't understand the reasons for legal action. You've got notion in the head, but I'm not sure where you've seen that, i certainly haven't said it.
Exactly so Silverstein being on the board means nothing whatsoever to him investing down the line.
I'm not keen on it being anything, I'm just stating the facts of what it currently is - a loan which in no way negates legal action because the issues involved in the sale predate this loan by a while and it also puts the trust in an even worse position if eventually they do decide to convert it to equity. So it actually strengthens the desire for court action.
Sorry again for bursting more of your bubbles. Probably best you come round the idea that legal action is going ahead. | |
| |
| What do you choose? on 14:05 - Mar 16 with 637 views | jack247 |
Haven’t been on here for ages. This post has drawn me back. Great question!
Would I sacrifice 1 point (in a very close promotion race) for the first ever double? I’ve changed my mind a couple of times, but I’m going to let my heart rule my head.
If it wasn’t the first ever, or if that point guaranteed second, I’d answer differently. As it is, it may make the difference between second and third, chances are it won’t. | | | |
| What do you choose? on 14:28 - Mar 16 with 633 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What do you choose? on 13:39 - Mar 16 by Chief |
If you completely ignore the court case yes and its potential outcome yes. Proves the point the case is entirely justified. Plus Jenkins and Morgan etc would be diluted too.
How are they going to get to 5% then? Is this another of your fantastical plans that aren't realistically going to happen?
You are completely missing the point. There's no dispute that Silverstein and the Americans have loaned money to the club. Can you show me evidence that a 'Convertible loan note' has been issued alongside this?
Well let's not get carried away, all it is so far is a loan. That's very different to an investment. Well i suppose its no risk no lose investment for the Americans who'll make money off this. As it stands the club has to pay this back.
Not sure why you've lumped me in with people who want them to invest. I've always been clear that i don't want their money or to be in their pocket.
You still obviously don't understand the reasons for legal action. You've got notion in the head, but I'm not sure where you've seen that, i certainly haven't said it.
Exactly so Silverstein being on the board means nothing whatsoever to him investing down the line.
I'm not keen on it being anything, I'm just stating the facts of what it currently is - a loan which in no way negates legal action because the issues involved in the sale predate this loan by a while and it also puts the trust in an even worse position if eventually they do decide to convert it to equity. So it actually strengthens the desire for court action.
Sorry again for bursting more of your bubbles. Probably best you come round the idea that legal action is going ahead. |
There is no court case as we speak. Discussions have been going on for 3 years or so. It is proving more difficut than expected perhaps and that means more expensive. Clearly a second vote with the terms clear in black and white is approprite so the eye poping fees can be assessed. As time has gone on the anger has disapated and the club is performing a whole lot better than the proponents of action expected. Its a bit like Brexit. Promises could be delivered.
You do not yet seem to be willing to accept reality because you are lazy. I told you the proof of the CLN was in Winters recent submission. You cannot be bothered to check it for yourself.
Here it is to save you the trouble. From the December statement. Julian Winter's statement.
"Last week you may have seen the Companies House registration of funding via a convertible loan note coming in from our ownership group. That money matches the investment made by Jake Silverstein, who was appointed onto the club’s Board of Directors in August.
The injection of money will help the club in the short and medium term, and underlines the commitment of the ownership group in stabilising the club during these unprecedented times" [Post edited 16 Mar 2021 14:37]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| What do you choose? on 14:32 - Mar 16 with 631 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| What do you choose? on 14:05 - Mar 16 by jack247 |
Haven’t been on here for ages. This post has drawn me back. Great question!
Would I sacrifice 1 point (in a very close promotion race) for the first ever double? I’ve changed my mind a couple of times, but I’m going to let my heart rule my head.
If it wasn’t the first ever, or if that point guaranteed second, I’d answer differently. As it is, it may make the difference between second and third, chances are it won’t. |
Yes! great poster, welcome back.
How do you think we have played this year 247? |  | | |
| What do you choose? on 15:00 - Mar 16 with 609 views | Chief |
| What do you choose? on 14:28 - Mar 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is no court case as we speak. Discussions have been going on for 3 years or so. It is proving more difficut than expected perhaps and that means more expensive. Clearly a second vote with the terms clear in black and white is approprite so the eye poping fees can be assessed. As time has gone on the anger has disapated and the club is performing a whole lot better than the proponents of action expected. Its a bit like Brexit. Promises could be delivered.
You do not yet seem to be willing to accept reality because you are lazy. I told you the proof of the CLN was in Winters recent submission. You cannot be bothered to check it for yourself.
Here it is to save you the trouble. From the December statement. Julian Winter's statement.
"Last week you may have seen the Companies House registration of funding via a convertible loan note coming in from our ownership group. That money matches the investment made by Jake Silverstein, who was appointed onto the club’s Board of Directors in August.
The injection of money will help the club in the short and medium term, and underlines the commitment of the ownership group in stabilising the club during these unprecedented times" [Post edited 16 Mar 2021 14:37]
|
The case hasn't started yet no, but preparations are ongoing. The timescales aren't relevant seeing as the situation and share structure remains the same. A second vote probably not needed now, that would waste even more time.
Fair enough, i stand corrected, i didn't notice Winter say that.
Not that it changes anything. | |
| |
| What do you choose? on 15:14 - Mar 16 with 603 views | jack247 |
| What do you choose? on 14:32 - Mar 16 by 34dfgdf54 |
Yes! great poster, welcome back.
How do you think we have played this year 247? |
Cheers mate.
Very well in periods. We’ve got a solid defence, Woodman has dipped below his standards a bit recently, but over the course of the season has been excellent.
Certain players look much better under Cooper in a 352 than they have previously (Grimes, Fulton, both wingbacks).
I thought Spurs had Rodon half price, but the players we brought in, though none being close to his level, improved the squad as a whole significantly. To have the likes of Manning and Latibaudiere as bit part players is testament to that.
At the other end of the pitch, I think we’ve been very unlucky. This team with MGW instead of Hourihane (who I’m not knocking, he’s just a different type of player) would be a lot more fluid. We don’t break quickly enough and we don’t have anyone in midfield (maybe Dhanda) who can panic defences.
Losing Cullen and Morris was cruel. We don’t have any natural finishers and from the little I saw of Morris, he had that rare combination of strength and pace.
If we had him to take the burden off Ayew and Lowe when they clearly look burnt out and someone like MGW linking midfield and attack, I honestly think we’d be top.
I’m a bit concerned by Coopers hesitation to use the likes of Arriola, and Whittaker. I’ve always been a Routledge fan, but I’d expect an international we’ve only just signed to be coming on before him now,
Performances haven’t been great since the Forest game, we’ve taken 10 points from the last 4 games whilst being the worst team in all of them in my view. Like most others, I’m not sure if we can do that for another 10 games.
Hoping we go into the international break on a high and some of our players come back refreshed. Obviously hope Ayew doesn’t go to Ghana and we (Wales) rest Roberts for the Mexico game at the very least.
Apologies for how long that was, haven’t been here for a while and it was a bit of an open ended question | | | |
| What do you choose? on 15:41 - Mar 16 with 593 views | Fireboy2 |
| What do you choose? on 15:14 - Mar 16 by jack247 |
Cheers mate.
Very well in periods. We’ve got a solid defence, Woodman has dipped below his standards a bit recently, but over the course of the season has been excellent.
Certain players look much better under Cooper in a 352 than they have previously (Grimes, Fulton, both wingbacks).
I thought Spurs had Rodon half price, but the players we brought in, though none being close to his level, improved the squad as a whole significantly. To have the likes of Manning and Latibaudiere as bit part players is testament to that.
At the other end of the pitch, I think we’ve been very unlucky. This team with MGW instead of Hourihane (who I’m not knocking, he’s just a different type of player) would be a lot more fluid. We don’t break quickly enough and we don’t have anyone in midfield (maybe Dhanda) who can panic defences.
Losing Cullen and Morris was cruel. We don’t have any natural finishers and from the little I saw of Morris, he had that rare combination of strength and pace.
If we had him to take the burden off Ayew and Lowe when they clearly look burnt out and someone like MGW linking midfield and attack, I honestly think we’d be top.
I’m a bit concerned by Coopers hesitation to use the likes of Arriola, and Whittaker. I’ve always been a Routledge fan, but I’d expect an international we’ve only just signed to be coming on before him now,
Performances haven’t been great since the Forest game, we’ve taken 10 points from the last 4 games whilst being the worst team in all of them in my view. Like most others, I’m not sure if we can do that for another 10 games.
Hoping we go into the international break on a high and some of our players come back refreshed. Obviously hope Ayew doesn’t go to Ghana and we (Wales) rest Roberts for the Mexico game at the very least.
Apologies for how long that was, haven’t been here for a while and it was a bit of an open ended question |
A perfect summary of the season.
Great post mate. | | | |
| What do you choose? on 16:28 - Mar 16 with 586 views | britferry |
Swans win tonight, smash the Scummers and then Wales beat the Frogs for the GS... and even I might be happy on Saturday night | |
| |
| What do you choose? on 22:32 - Mar 16 with 553 views | DJack |
| What do you choose? on 15:41 - Mar 16 by Fireboy2 |
A perfect summary of the season.
Great post mate. |
This. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| What do you choose? on 08:37 - Mar 17 with 525 views | pikeypaul |
Yet more nonsense from the rsole licker.
The Trusts share were worth £21 million before the greedy sell out coonts went behind their and every true Swans fans back and sold to the yanks barstaada.
But it’s the Trust that are “bad owners” he says,incompetent yes bad owners no. Apart from the few who were obviously in bed with the sellout coonts 99% of the Trust had the prosperity of Swansea City FC at heart unlike the yank hedge fund that ONLY is interested in increasing their own personal wealth and how much they can screw Swansea for. [Post edited 17 Mar 2021 8:44]
|  |
| |
| What do you choose? on 09:38 - Mar 17 with 517 views | 34dfgdf54 |
Would have been targeting three points for these two games, Saturday becomes a must win now if we want top 2. | | | |
| What do you choose? on 12:53 - Mar 17 with 505 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| What do you choose? on 08:37 - Mar 17 by pikeypaul |
Yet more nonsense from the rsole licker.
The Trusts share were worth £21 million before the greedy sell out coonts went behind their and every true Swans fans back and sold to the yanks barstaada.
But it’s the Trust that are “bad owners” he says,incompetent yes bad owners no. Apart from the few who were obviously in bed with the sellout coonts 99% of the Trust had the prosperity of Swansea City FC at heart unlike the yank hedge fund that ONLY is interested in increasing their own personal wealth and how much they can screw Swansea for. [Post edited 17 Mar 2021 8:44]
|
How is "incompetent" (your word) owner not a bad owner dimwit?
The problem is their structure. Any decision takes months if not years (see the legal case). No way to run a football club. Rather than reform they have sought to deflect criticism to others namely the US people and the sellers. They needed to sell in 2016 but could not make big decsions. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| What do you choose? on 18:14 - Mar 17 with 484 views | shingle |
| What do you choose? on 16:06 - Mar 15 by Chief |
Ah OK then, so presumably you have the same sentiments regarding them not getting involved in stadium expansion funding too then?
Why forget about dividends!? Rest of that paragraph is pure contradictory bluster. By the trust selling their shares and it being spent on stadium expansion which in hindsight wouldn't have been a great idea, they wouldn't benefit from growth nor income. So i don't really see what you're getting at.
Well its not happening because surprise surprise the Americans didn't go ahead with plans to expand so no one was diluted. And your buzzword CLN (no evidence that any CLN was issued) isn't currently either, it's purely a loan (with relatively high interest).
Anyway keep the thread on track. I know you set a regular alarm to unnecessarily twist a thread towards trust criticisms but this has been done to death previously. |
What a boring bloke.  | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
