Have the Americans&sellouts have been colluding behind the trust's back AGAIN?

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Not enough is being made of this in my opinion. And that includes from the trust itself.

The minutes from the recent fans dialogue event were recently released and Winter discussed the 'Investment' (loan) of money into the club - The Convertible Loan Note that was issued over a year ago.

At the time it was announced that Silverstein had put money in, matched by Kaplan&Levein. But at this meeting Winter announced 'other shareholders' were also involved. Besides the trust, Kaplan & Levein, I believe the only remaining shareholders are Jenkins and Morgan.

The trust however have never been asked to contribute to this CLN nor have they been informed that any shareholders besides K&L had contributed.

So I can only conclude that AGAIN covert negotiations regarding the club's shareholding have been going on behind the trust's back! Will they ever learn!!??

Let's get to court ASAP!

 

[PSumbler]

Not enough is being made of this in my opinion. And that includes from the trust itself.

The minutes from the recent fans dialogue event were recently released and Winter discussed the 'Investment' (loan) of money into the club - The Convertible Loan Note that was issued over a year ago.

At the time it was announced that Silverstein had put money in, matched by Kaplan&Levein. But at this meeting Winter announced 'other shareholders' were also involved. Besides the trust, Kaplan & Levein, I believe the only remaining shareholders are Jenkins and Morgan.

The trust however have never been asked to contribute to this CLN nor have they been informed that any shareholders besides K&L had contributed.

So I can only conclude that AGAIN covert negotiations regarding the club's shareholding have been going on behind the trust's back! Will they ever learn!!??

Let's get to court ASAP!

I read that slightly differently that the "Other shareholders" will be from the Kaplan and Levien "group"- each of whom they will class as shareholders even if they are not listed as such

There's a couple that were/are on the board of the club so you can possibly assume it was them

https://planetswans.co.uk/2021/12/03/winter-calls-on-the-club-owners-to-do-more-and-warns-of-player-sales/

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Winter did state 'shareholders' though?

Board members like Porter aren't shareholders, but I see what you mean.

 

[PSumbler]

Winter did state 'shareholders' though?

Board members like Porter aren't shareholders, but I see what you mean.

You are quite correct but Romie Chaudhari and Bobby Hernreich are both shareholders within that ownership group

And it has always been assumed - but never confirmed - that they hold more than 5% of the total club shareholding hence their seat on the board -my assumption when he said that was it could well be these two but I dont know that for any certainty

FWIW Porter is one of the most arrogant people I have ever had the misfortune to meet - every meeting I was in that he was present he spent most of his time on the phone and others have said the same thing.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Noted, however Silverstein is on the board now who we know for certain has no holding, so not sure the 5% 'rule' had ever applied to them.

 

[crazedbison]

Noted, however Silverstein is on the board now who we know for certain has no holding, so not sure the 5% 'rule' had ever applied to them.

This is the one that’s been most baffling to me.

How can someone who has simply loaned the club money get on the board? Does the bank have someone on the board? Of course not.

Only thing this points to is that the loan was never meant to be repaid. It was a back door way to get investment while simultaneously watering down the trust’s shares.

Just as they never expected to be repaid on the £5m loan from Silverstein’s parents, they never expect to be matched by the remaining shareholders, namely the trust.

I for one hope we (the trust) do whatever we can to match the loan amount and call their bluff. The loan terms are relatively favorable.

 

[PSumbler]

Noted, however Silverstein is on the board now who we know for certain has no holding, so not sure the 5% 'rule' had ever applied to them.

Granted although crazed bison's response probably answers that

The only way the loan would have ever been repaid (IMO) was upon promotion - the problem with all of this, as has always been the case, is that it is all cloak and dagger and never in the open or a point of discussion at any point

And that is why, five years later, we are still arguing over it - if only the sellouts hadnt colluded against the Trust this could have all been so different

And yet they still send out their family members (and the odd friend they have left) to try and deflect the blame onto the Trust

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Yea agreed it's laughable. And the trust apparently had very little visibility of who the guy was prior to him being appointed & were still awaiting information some time later.

Couple of other points, the trust wouldn't need to match the loan, it would be pro rata, not sure exactly how much that would be, but also not sure whether the trust has that money. A lot of it is currently tied up in the legal case. And on that point, there's a possibility that after the case the Trust won't have any shares to be diluted too.

The terms are I believe 5% interest which I'm told is quite high, I wouldn't be particularly happy if the trust were taking that amount off the club myself.

 

[PSumbler]

Yea agreed it's laughable. And the trust apparently had very little visibility of who the guy was prior to him being appointed & were still awaiting information some time later.

Couple of other points, the trust wouldn't need to match the loan, it would be pro rata, not sure exactly how much that would be, but also not sure whether the trust has that money. A lot of it is currently tied up in the legal case. And on that point, there's a possibility that after the case the Trust won't have any shares to be diluted too.

The terms are I believe 5% interest which I'm told is quite high, I wouldn't be particularly happy if the trust were taking that amount off the club myself.

5% return on investment - you wouldnt get that in Santander bank account

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Yea agreed it's laughable. And the trust apparently had very little visibility of who the guy was prior to him being appointed & were still awaiting information some time later.

Couple of other points, the trust wouldn't need to match the loan, it would be pro rata, not sure exactly how much that would be, but also not sure whether the trust has that money. A lot of it is currently tied up in the legal case. And on that point, there's a possibility that after the case the Trust won't have any shares to be diluted too.

The terms are I believe 5% interest which I'm told is quite high, I wouldn't be particularly happy if the trust were taking that amount off the club myself.

5% return on investment - you wouldnt get that in Santander bank account

:mrgreen:

 

[Badlands]

The Trust is a minority shareholder that offers nothing to the finances of Swansea City FC.
Other than a few members and some disgruntled fans they do not represent anyone other than The Trust.
If they want a big say they can buy out the other shareholders.

 

[Marchamjack]

The Trust is a minority shareholder that offers nothing to the finances of Swansea City FC.
Other than a few members and some disgruntled fans they do by not represent anyone other than The Trust.
If they want a big say they can buy out the other shareholders.

And the Americans offer nothing to the Swans finances either, other than to look to leverage interest off the debt they’ve placed it in.

And they certainly represent less people than the Trust do. They represent themselves and no-one else

 

[crazedbison]

The Trust is a minority shareholder that offers nothing to the finances of Swansea City FC.
Other than a few members and some disgruntled fans they do not represent anyone other than The Trust.
If they want a big say they can buy out the other shareholders.

With all due respect, this is nonsense.

I can’t speak for any other member of the trust, but I’ve always been happy to financially support the trust (and club) in any way asked or presented with. I would be happy to,and comfortable with, supporting in a much more meaningful way than the, what, £10 a year for the trust.

If the club, the trust leadership or the majority owners don’t care to see the trust’s influence increase it absolutely will not despite what you or I may want.

 

[PSumbler]

The Trust is a minority shareholder that offers nothing to the finances of Swansea City FC.
Other than a few members and some disgruntled fans they do not represent anyone other than The Trust.
If they want a big say they can buy out the other shareholders.

So you dont believe in supporter representation at football clubs then? Your call I guess.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

:shock:

The Trust is a minority shareholder that offers nothing to the finances of Swansea City FC.
Other than a few members and some disgruntled fans they do not represent anyone other than The Trust.
If they want a big say they can buy out the other shareholders.

Hmm your credibility is seriously compromised.

Everyone knows you're seriously biased towards the sellouts / Americans to the point that it there's been threads specifically started about you&your motives, on which you've repeatedly denied any relationship with anyone connected to the club / Americans.

However......

You did slip up the other day didn't you? You may have thought myself and others had forgotten.....

But you did state to having a 'meeting' with Pearlman and others........

Woops

Not as impartial as you claim to be are you "badlands'