| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. 04:05 - Feb 19 with 5198 views | NOTRAC |
The papers are making great ploy about the fact that the Liberty lease is possibly going to be transferred to SwanseaCity Football Club, as if the transfer is being made for the good of football in Swansea and for the people of Swansea.
Yet in reality the lease is being sold to a group of American investors, and the negotiating party on their behalf are probably the same people who conspired together to keep the Trust out of the sale of the Club itself.
The Trust should be involved fully in this sale/transfer.Legally they have no power, but this is not a normal transaction.This is a sale involving representatives of the City of Swansea, in other words ourselves.Surely if these representatives have the future good of football in Swansea at heart they should involve the Trust ,who represent that future more than the Americans or the sell outs, Jenkins, Morgan etc could ever do.
When we talk about a long term lease of say 50 years it doesn't sound so bad as an outright sale. But of course it is game changing for ever as far as we, the people are concerned, because where will most of us be in fifty years time.
The Trust are the people of Swansea as far as the football club is concerned.They should be the Contributors as well as the watchdogs as far as this transaction is concerned.
It is no good for the Trust to come back and say afterwards that they wished that this or that had happened in respect of the lease.They should be consultants and leaders .If that twenty two per cent is worth anything it should be brought into action now, and the Council told in no uncertain way, that the Trust wants to be part of these discussions and must be part of these discussions, for the future good of the foot ball club and for the future benefit of Swansea. |  |
| |  |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 09:29 - Feb 20 with 1137 views | Nookiejack |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 08:54 - Feb 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Stadco receive match day revenues (and all other revenues attached to the stadium) nookie, not the Swans. All costs come out of that, and 'profits' are shared (under different percentages at different crowd levels).
Reading the articles, it appears that what is being proposed is the club take over the revenues, and in compensation, pay an amount to both the Ospreys and the council each year.
There are covenants in place at present and I imagine these will remain in place.
As I said previously, this is similar to the arrangement in place at Man City. The Trust need to ensure that the leaseholder is the club to protect it, and the council could also insert provisions about the lease reverting back under a variety of circumstances.
The council will want to renegotiate to protect the revenues over the course of the lease, it gets the stadium away from their need to manage it, and it is quite possible that he club will also pay an amount up front to 'purchase' the lease. |
Thanks Loondonlisa
I can now understand a bit why this may be more advantageous to the Council - if the club pays an amount upfront to purchase the lease. If Council is short of cash at the moment.
The mirror image of this is that club then has to take on debt to acquire it? Presumably with the substantial losses being made - club will have to take on debt. Is this the right time to be doing this?
Or will an SPV will be formed by the Yanks (not including the Trust as it can't raise debt) to raise the debt and acquire the lease by making an upfront payment.
We are very close to relegation - so do we want further debt to be foistered on the club - what happens in a downward spiral scenario? The projected benefits you would assume would have to be substantial and deliverable to outweigh downside scenario (which has a high chance of occurring in short term). | | | |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 09:50 - Feb 20 with 1101 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 09:29 - Feb 20 by Nookiejack |
Thanks Loondonlisa
I can now understand a bit why this may be more advantageous to the Council - if the club pays an amount upfront to purchase the lease. If Council is short of cash at the moment.
The mirror image of this is that club then has to take on debt to acquire it? Presumably with the substantial losses being made - club will have to take on debt. Is this the right time to be doing this?
Or will an SPV will be formed by the Yanks (not including the Trust as it can't raise debt) to raise the debt and acquire the lease by making an upfront payment.
We are very close to relegation - so do we want further debt to be foistered on the club - what happens in a downward spiral scenario? The projected benefits you would assume would have to be substantial and deliverable to outweigh downside scenario (which has a high chance of occurring in short term). |
No idea what sort of amount (if any) would be paid.
The reality is that no party does particularly well out of the current arrangement. Mainly because the arrangements were put in place when the Swans were in Division 1, the Ospreys were the bigger party (by crowd size) and the club had no capacity for holding the head lease.
Things have changed. And stuff such as naming rights, once unattractive to any company other than one with a local connection, are now only attractive from the football club's perspective if the club receives the lion's share. This arrangement (mooted arrangement) as far as has been reported is what I, amongst others, have been pushing for for quite some time. A way of ensuring the club receives the commercial benefit of our success, without taking out debt to purchase the stadium outright. The council have probably now decided it's the only deal in town, and it's better for them to receive £750k or whatever per annum, than very little (and lots of hassle).
Until the detail is known it's impossible to tell whether it's a good deal or not. But I agree that any assignment of lease to the American holding company or proxy for such, must be avoided. | | | |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 09:52 - Feb 20 with 1095 views | Joe_bradshaw |
Ok doubt that the deal will be signed before the end of the season and if we go down it probably won't be signed at all. |  |
| |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 09:53 - Feb 20 with 1093 views | dobjack2 |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 08:54 - Feb 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Stadco receive match day revenues (and all other revenues attached to the stadium) nookie, not the Swans. All costs come out of that, and 'profits' are shared (under different percentages at different crowd levels).
Reading the articles, it appears that what is being proposed is the club take over the revenues, and in compensation, pay an amount to both the Ospreys and the council each year.
There are covenants in place at present and I imagine these will remain in place.
As I said previously, this is similar to the arrangement in place at Man City. The Trust need to ensure that the leaseholder is the club to protect it, and the council could also insert provisions about the lease reverting back under a variety of circumstances.
The council will want to renegotiate to protect the revenues over the course of the lease, it gets the stadium away from their need to manage it, and it is quite possible that he club will also pay an amount up front to 'purchase' the lease. |
Cheers for explaining the background and that covenants are already in place. Hopefully a fair deal for all parties can come from it. | | | |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 11:26 - Feb 20 with 1037 views | Nookiejack |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 09:50 - Feb 20 by londonlisa2001 |
No idea what sort of amount (if any) would be paid.
The reality is that no party does particularly well out of the current arrangement. Mainly because the arrangements were put in place when the Swans were in Division 1, the Ospreys were the bigger party (by crowd size) and the club had no capacity for holding the head lease.
Things have changed. And stuff such as naming rights, once unattractive to any company other than one with a local connection, are now only attractive from the football club's perspective if the club receives the lion's share. This arrangement (mooted arrangement) as far as has been reported is what I, amongst others, have been pushing for for quite some time. A way of ensuring the club receives the commercial benefit of our success, without taking out debt to purchase the stadium outright. The council have probably now decided it's the only deal in town, and it's better for them to receive £750k or whatever per annum, than very little (and lots of hassle).
Until the detail is known it's impossible to tell whether it's a good deal or not. But I agree that any assignment of lease to the American holding company or proxy for such, must be avoided. |
Thanks once again
Jigsaw pieces are all falling into place for the Yanks
(1) In a substantial controlling position (in contrast to pre sale position where no one shareholder owned the club). So also have a control premium in respect of their investment.
(2) Trust totally boxed in under the new arricles - no influence and can't sell the shares without the Yanks approval).
(3) 50 year lease being negotiated
All these elements increase value of their investment and just need us to avoid relegation.
What they need now is for some Chinese companies to win contracts to build the tidal lagoon - as it seems to be a strategic policy of the Chinese to invest in a football club alongside large infrastructure projects which they are involved in.
Could therefore turn into being a very nice return on investment for the Yanks. | | | |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 11:37 - Feb 20 with 1007 views | monmouth |
It will also allow expansion presumably, if we decide it is viable, given that the extra revenues would go to the club. Sorry if this has been done, I'm playing catch up. |  |
| |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 12:08 - Feb 20 with 981 views | NOTRAC |
It will be a new lease.The existing Company Swansea City Management will be wound up.
The new lease will be negotiated with the Council by our new American investors.There was even talk by a council representative that they would even consider selling the ground.
Our representatives on the stadium management company at the moment are Jenkins Dineen and Pearlman. Surely the Trust should be pushing for representation now, if only to know exactly what is going on. | |
| |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 12:45 - Feb 20 with 952 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 12:08 - Feb 20 by NOTRAC |
It will be a new lease.The existing Company Swansea City Management will be wound up.
The new lease will be negotiated with the Council by our new American investors.There was even talk by a council representative that they would even consider selling the ground.
Our representatives on the stadium management company at the moment are Jenkins Dineen and Pearlman. Surely the Trust should be pushing for representation now, if only to know exactly what is going on. |
The involvement of the Trust to ensure correct covenants are in place, reversion of the lease under certain circumstances, and where the lease 'sits' in the ownership structure, is crucial. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 12:53 - Feb 20 with 934 views | NOTRAC |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 12:45 - Feb 20 by londonlisa2001 |
The involvement of the Trust to ensure correct covenants are in place, reversion of the lease under certain circumstances, and where the lease 'sits' in the ownership structure, is crucial. |
I agree absolutely.There is no time to lose. | |
| |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 12:59 - Feb 20 with 911 views | Nookiejack |
| Sale of Liberty.The Trust should be involved now. on 12:08 - Feb 20 by NOTRAC |
It will be a new lease.The existing Company Swansea City Management will be wound up.
The new lease will be negotiated with the Council by our new American investors.There was even talk by a council representative that they would even consider selling the ground.
Our representatives on the stadium management company at the moment are Jenkins Dineen and Pearlman. Surely the Trust should be pushing for representation now, if only to know exactly what is going on. |
What is it indicative of - if the stadium management company is wound up?
Wouldn't you expect this if club or SPV owned by Yanks now enters into a new lease of 50 years? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
