Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Why’s it naive? If you want to enjoy the good times you’ve got to endure the bad. Imagine what difference an extra 1000 fans could make to the playing budget? £250k per season at least!
Question: What came first – the poor product (i.e. money spent by fans attending games being wasted on players of inferior quality, nothing spent on improving the facilities etc. etc.) – meaning fans were subject to lack of entertainment, team spiralling out of control despite them having attended and paid their hard earned?
OR
Fans, having spent their hard earned attending and supporting their team, identifying that the product no longer matches the outlay and therefore deciding not to attend any more, resulting in less money to spend (i.e. having to spend less on players of inferior quality, having nothing to spend on improving the facilities etc. etc.)?Ok you are being pedantic. The Swanns have had CONTROL of everything since 2013 regardless of what a piece of paper says.
You are correct – I am being pedantic, but this is because I would prefer people to be basing opinions on fact. If I am the sole shareholder of a PLC (even if I set up the PLC in the first place) and in order to do my work, I use PLC funds to buy me a laptop for example, that laptop belongs to the PLC and not me. Should I then want to sell all of my shares in the PLC, the laptop will be used as an asset when assessing the value of those shares. The new “owner” will own the PLC – the assets continue to be owned by the PLC. If my company goes in to liquidation, those assets will be considered when it comes to selling assets off to pay debt. If those assets have already been transferred, my company is much less valuable to either a prospective purchaser or a liquidator. Those are facts.
So people are getting upset over pieces of paper that Swann has ultimate control over?
Again – that may be the case. But the you have been stating as a matter of fact the Mr.Swann already owned the stadium and land. The actual fact is he didn’t – SUFC PLC did. That is the ONLY point I am trying to make here. Everyone else can have their opinions – to which they are entitled – but I am just trying to provide the correct fact around ownership of a PLCs assets. They are WHOLLY OWNED by the PLC, not the shareholders.
Ah yes Mr & Mrs Swann. Therefore they own Coolsilk, who own SUFC. It’s been that way since 2013.
Some are just making a big deal of it now because we’re doing poor in the league.
That’s as may be – but they never did and still don’t OWN the stadium or land. They were on the legal entity that is SUFC PLCs asset list. Now I would guess they are on the legal entity that is Coolsik’s asset list.
Whose company is Coolsilk?
Have a look on Companies House. It should be on there as matter of public knowledge.
Swann has ALWAYS owned the stadium and land. That’s what an OWNER is.
Correct me if I am wrong here (I am not an expert), but as the company (SUFC) is a PLC, the company owns the assets. If Mr. Swann is the only (or major) shareholder, he would own the business BUT NOT the assets as he and the PLC are separate legal entities. That’s what a SOLE or GROUP OF SHAREHOLDERS is. He/they own’s the company. THE COMPANY OWN’S THE ASSETS.
I have no knowledge or real understanding of how the transfer of assets actually happened, but let’s take an example and assume that, as the owner of SUFC PLC, Mr. Swann has overseen the transfer of SUFC PLC assets to Coolsilk in order to pay off incurred “debts”. If Coolsilk is also a PLC (and I haven’t bothered to check) of which Mr. Swann is the sole or major shareholder, that company now own’s the stadium and land – NOT MR. SWANN, they are separate legal entities.
Therefore, Mr. Swann would NEVER have legally owned the stadium and land!
Correct me if I am wrong here (I am not an expert), but as the company (SUFC) is a PLC, the company owns the assets. If Mr. Swann is the only (or major) shareholder, he would own the business BUT NOT the assets as he and the PLC are separate legal entities. That’s what a SOLE or GROUP OF SHAREHOLDERS is. He/they own’s the company. THE COMPANY OWN’S THE ASSETS.
I have no knowledge or real understanding of how the transfer of assets actually happened, but let’s take an example and assume that, as the owner of SUFC PLC, Mr. Swann has overseen the transfer of SUFC PLC assets to Coolsilk in order to pay off incurred “debts”. If Coolsilk is also a PLC (and I haven’t bothered to check) of which Mr. Swann is the sole or major shareholder, that company now own’s the stadium and land – NOT MR. SWANN, they are separate legal entities.
Therefore, Mr. Swann would NEVER have legally owned the stadium and land!
-
AuthorPosts