All the action from tonight's Supporter's Trust Forum, which was specially organised to address fan's concerns regarding ongoing talk of a share sale
<Phil Sumbler (chairman of Supporters Trust) introduces event>
PS: The purpose of us being here this evening is to hold an open forum to discuss the potential sale of shares in Swansea City Football Club to outside interest, which currently comes from American businessmen John Moores and Charles Noell.
You'll not I've not used the word investment, which has been bandied about a lot in the media. There's a specific reason for that - the sale of shares for £30million is not an investment for the football club, its a sale of shares for individuals who sell them. It's important to remember that as it's so often misconstrued. The sale of shares is not investment and we're unlikely to use that word too much this evening.
Before I go further I want to introduce the board. Just going along who's sat at the table, we've got Nigel Hamer -Secretary of the Trust, Stuart McDonald (the chap in the nice yellow jumper) who is Trust treasurer - whose job has obviously become a lot more demanding as revenues have increased, and Huw Cooze, our Trust Supporter Director. Huw is an executive director of the Swans as well as being a board member of the Trust and is involved in the day to day operations of the club. Finally we've got Jim White, Trust Vice-Chairman, who does lots of work commercially, on the website, membership and other things for us, as well as standing in when I'm unavailable.
<Phil Sumbler points out other trust board members dotted around the room>
We've got Ian James, our disability officer and trust board member, Viv Brooks, who does a lot of community work, social work and other things, plus stands in the pod on a matchday in a luminous jacket. We've got Ron Knuszka, former chairman of the trust and he also works closely with Viv on the social side of things, Duncan - who does all our website writing. Viv Williams, who does a lot of our commercial activities trying to bring money into the trust.
Then you've got Glyn, a relatively new member of the trust board, who's a fundraising officer, as is Barbara. Then you've got Will Morris, who's a serving trust board member who is also an associate director of the football club as well. Lastly we've got Cath Dyer who does a lot of work in the community. Cath is also a fluent Welsh speaker.
<Phil Sumbler explains that floor will shortly be open for questions, but makes an opening statement>
PS: We've currently got an e-membership of around 12,000 people, but only 1,133 paid members. What is a paid membership? We've tried to convey there are 2 levels of membership, If you are a season ticket holder, you are an e-member automatically. You will need to pay a fee if you want to be a full member of the trust. A full member pays £10 per annum, but what a paid membership gets you is a vote. So if this current transaction came to a point where a vote was called, you need to be a paid member to take part.
It's important you know that, and that you take advantage of that so that if it did ever come to it, you'd have a vote at that point in time.
<Phil points out you can sign up at the back of the room>
PS: That's my only plea of the evening, so onto the sale of shares and the Americans. There isn't a formal offer on the table. We have nothing we can convey at this point in time which says "this is our belief" or "this is what we think of the offer". All we can say is this is what we know at this point in time.
It's also fair to say things have gone quiet over the last few months. Prior to Christmas, things were moving at quite a rate of knots and we were probably of the belief that, by now, an offer would be on the table. We don't, and one of our legal representatives doesn't think it's close to happening.
John Moores & Charles Noell - Huw & I first met him back in September/October time at the Saints game. There was a group of Americans over for that game, and they were looking at various aspects of the football club, and also meeting the shareholders. They were quite adamant that they wanted to work closely with us as a trust, and believed us to be key in the transaction, as was Huw Jenkins. It's probably fair to say that he's more key for the future of the club than the other shareholders.
This really probably was the first connection for the shareholders. About 6 weeks later a meeting was held where Brian Katzen presented a heads of terms sheet detailing what was being proposed, which was namely a 30% share purchase on a pro rata basis for the sum of £30million. There was also a future right to purchase further shares which could have seen them ending up with over 60% of the shares.
That's on the assumption that none of our shares will be sold. It's also worth noting, that there's no further equity investment proposed at the outset, although possibly a loan for capex was assured on commercial terms, but we have no details to confirm that.
The heads of terms sheet was signed on behalf of the selling shareholders as agreed at that meeting, signed by Brian Katzen. As a trust we then requested a meeting with the potential share buyers to discuss the same points we'd made in the press, and that we'd made privately to the other shareholders.
These are:
We've no intention to dilute our shareholding.
We wish to retain our position of having an executive director on the board of the football club.
For us to be able to agree to the deal, we are looking for certain protections, and the proposed new purchasers need us onside. That is vital, because as mentioned although we only have 1100 members we do represent the fans. Without our backing the supporters could well go against the Americans and they need the fans onside.
Huw & myself travelled to Heathrow in November to meet CN. We had Dai Little with us. Dai is a partner in a company called McGrath based in London - a law firm. He's a Swansea lad, a Swansea fan and the legal representative of the trust. We also had Richard Major, who is a trust member and a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers and a long term Swans fan. Neither can be here today.
They are part of our advisory team, and you'll hear more from them in the future if the deal progresses. Prior to this meeting we've done 2 things - taken out due diligence checks on potential share purchasers, and taken advice from counsel as regards to our ultimate best position. Counsel's opinion was threefold. Firstly, it is against our best interests in the long term to sell our shares. Simple reason being as a minority shareholder, if it all went wrong the better the shareholding the better a chance of it standing up in court in future.
They also advised us if we were to sell the money isn't divided amongst members. It's held by the trust, and if it's not held by the trust it needs to be given to a local charity.
It's also worth noting that counsel were of the opinion that the decision on how to progress in regards to internal shareholding could be undertaken solely by the trust board.
That piece of information took a lot of debate for us on the trust board, but we decided at that point in time that it wasn't the right thing to do at this point in time, and therefore we've said that if it did happen we'd take a consultation amongst our members.
From the point of view of our members that are here, we haven't paid much in fees. The due diligence checks were with a US company and we've also taken out a counsel opinion. Dai has discounted his fees 50%, Richard has waived charges completely.
We've also looked, and this has been widely talked about, at trying to get our shareholding above 25% which is a key figure. This means we're not a minority shareholder, and we'd have some protections by having that big a stake. We've made two offers in the last six months to shareholders to get our shareholding above 25%, but both have been rejected out of hand.
<voice from crowd: can you tell us who these shareholders are?>
PS: No theres, seven shareholders of the football club. Martin Morgan, Brian Katzen, the trust, Huw, Leigh Dineen, Rob Davies & John Van Zweden, all holding various percentages.
<question regarding Morgan's, as it's listed as "Mr & Mrs on Swans' site but PS had referred to it as Martin>
PS: In terms of the shareholders, they are held in joint names.
<Jim White: Can we just let PS finish, we'll have plenty of time for questions>
PS: What we believe is that the due diligence we've taken is far more excessive than any taken by the other shareholders of the club, and that the prospective share buyers would pass a Premier League fit and proper persons' test.
I'm sure everyone has been online and seen what the options are, what their history is, but the fact is they'd pass the Premier League test. We met with CN, and were adamant in terms of not wanting to sell. We asked for his motivations as to why he wanted to buy a stake and to be honest we're still not sure today what they are. We kept hearing the word, and I'll use it, "soccer", but we couldn't see and haven't seen since a clear rationale as to why they wanted to buy the shares. But, their intentions were seemingly aligned with the ongoing success of the club, and they stated they wanted to work with us as an organisation to ensure this success happened.
It's worth noting if the 30% goes through, we straight away become the second biggest shareholder in this football club. Between us and the Americans we have a majority shareholding. Dai Little has met with the seven shareholders' legal representatives, there's been no follow up since and we've stated we're not pushing this further. It's not in our interests to push this deal further, or to see it through to fruition, so we're making no moves to speed it along.
Dai's also of the opinion there's yet to be a full due diligence report carried out on the club by the Americans, and finally for us to see any way of not being hostile toward the deal, a new shareholders agreement needs to be drawn up enforcing our rights as a 21% shareholder stating the following. Number one, prevent our interest ever being diluted. Number two, maintain our right to have at least 1 director on baord of club. Finally number three, to give us right to veto certain decisions ie. excessive borrowing by the club.
The potential terms of the shareholders agreement will form a part of our consultation with our members when it comes around. We also know some shareholders have been looking at potential alternative deals because perhaps, at £100million, they feel the club is undervalued. From our point of view it makes no odds what the value of the club is as any money raised would be by share purchase, and would go to the individual, not to the club.
<PS invites questions from floor, asking people to give name and indicate if they are a trust member>
Q: Lee Jones - Trust member - In relation to the offer you made to the shareholders, to what equivalent was that? Were were out of the league in terms of being able to afford it?
PS: The club is valued at £100million, you could say 1% = £1million. To get above 25% we need to buy 4% we'd need £4million, which we don't have. We've got £650,000 in the bank from our dividends, potentially more this year, so we've made offers at that level to one particular shareholder to buy 4%, then we offered to them all to buy on a pro rata basis to get us above 25%, but only for the amount of money we've got in the bank.
If anyone has got £4million in the bank they'd like to donate, we may get a different answer....but there is a certain reason it's being blocked. The moment we go above 25% and get a certain "protection", it actually means the club is worth less, so it means less money coming in the other way for the other shareholders [if they were to sell at a later date].
Q: David Brock - Paid member - I'm sure you've seen allegations that our trust board member can't operate without a conflict of interest while he's being paid by the club?
PS: I'll pass this to Huw [Cooze] in a second - he's been involved in the programme in one shape or form since about 1977...he's been a supporter director for 10 years and he's produced the program in that time. I can categorically confirm that there is no conflict of interest at all. It doesn't prevent him doing his job. Every year the contract is put up to tender and Huw puts his bid in blind, and if he wasn't the cheapest - trust me I know how the club works - he wouldn't get the deal.
HC: There's a company from Merthyr, one from Llansamlet, a couple from Cardiff and a company from Bristol all competing for the contract.
PS: It's a valid concern, off the back of it it leads us to look at these things for future. I've known Huw for 10 years and know he operates on a fair basis and represents us as a group in the best way that anybody possibly could. I think these conflict of interests questions will always come about - we don't always get the result we want and something we don't do well is blow our own trumpet and say what we do on a regular basis. We accept we need to improve on that and I think if we become more forceful publicly in terms of what we do then those types of allegations will reduce.
Q: Frank Bowen - Paid Member - Firstly thanks for all your efforts. In reference to money, what actions are the trust taking to exploit money from the unique and excellent brand that we've got, t-shirts, mugs etc?
JW: It's interesting, we did try it in a few places a couple of years ago actually, and to be honest we didn't sell that many and also we felt that our job as a trust isn't to take away from the commercial revenue of the club - that's the job of the commercial department of the club to sell produces in that way. We try different things - you've seen the badges and stickers we've done but we decided as a trust a few years ago when we did some fleeces that we wouldn't carry on in that vain.
Q: Gareth Evans - Paid member - Over the last 10 years there's been a good relationship - or seemed to be - between the directors and the club. In the last 12 months we've seen the directors take a dividend and now we've got this [potential] arrangement seemingly out of the blue. As directors, has Huw [Cooze] has been able to get some idea about why the change in heart? Is it purely for financial gain?
HC: A good question, personally I think they've done 13/14 years - can they go on for another 10 years? I doubt it very much. Is it time to sell? I say no, but individuals - if someone offered you a phenomenal amount of money you're going to look at it. We've all discussed it professionally - even when we've met with them. It's all been up front and amicable.
Q: Nigel Davies - Trust member - Can you tell us what the trust stance is on the purchase of the stadium, because there have been suggestions that that's a crucial part of the deal for the Americans?
PS: There is no requirement from the Americans that purchasing the Liberty is part of the deal. The club have looked at this quite a bit over the past and that the council are short of money, and the council have offered what appears to be a good deal which seems to make good commercial sense.
Things like naming rights for the stadium, for Premier League football clubs, could bring in enough money to pay from that, plus income from events which could be held at the stadium. I still feel for a council owned stadium it's undersold in terms of the amount it's used and if we can exploit that it brings another good opportunity for income for the club. It's not something which goes hand in hand with the Americans at all.
HC: Just to add to that, what Huw & the board have said is the club has to go on, and if deals become available which make sense we have to look at them, and that's where we're at with potentially buying the stadium.
Q: Scott Mackay - Paid Member - In terms of owning the stadium, what are the perceived benefits of? Planning permission etc will be the same for expansion, so what are the benefits the club sees?
HC: As Phil said earlier, we'd earn more from naming rights - if we bought this stadium for the figure everyone has mentioned (£20million) and took it out over 10 years, it's possible you could get that in naming rights. That's without trying to run it differently to how the council have done previously.
Q: SM - follow up - Is that something the club are looking at currently?
HC: It's an option, certainly.
Q: You mentioned you offered to buy shares out of money you already have, is it a possibility where you could offer that money plus money you may get in future from future dividends?
PS: Certainly with the first, and with the second offer was to base it on future dividends. We're in the Premier League now so there's a reasonable chance the dividends will continue. If we drop to the Championship those dividends may not continue. One of the things we have considered is do we go out with a generic appeal saying "look, if you've got money lump it in with the trust and we'll see what we can do".
We are probably of the opinion at the moment that we think nobody wants to sell to us because once we get to 25% protection the individual shares are worth less.
Q: Patrick Burrows - Paid Member - I disagree with that was said earlier about the stadium. I think as the trust's idea is to get full control of the club as residents of Swansea we've already got full control of the stadium, and we should be protecting that.You mentioned earlier there could be something on the table where the club is owned 60% by foreign tycoons I think we should be against that.
PS: Taking your point, I'm not sure that the trust as it stands at the moment wants to own the whole club. It's a lovely dream, but I don't know if it would ever work running it on a day to day basis... I don't know if that is a real option for the future. In terms of the stadium yes it is owned by the people of Swansea because it's council owned. As it's not owned by the football club I think if we were to own the stadium we would be able to make more commercially than it costs to run it, especially in the Premier League. It's a world-wide brand - I can't remember what Liberty Properties paid for the rights but they're getting their name pushed around the world for not much money.
Q: Alan Birch - Paid Member - Two questions if I may. Firstly, when the share sale idea was first floated it was implied the Americans wanted to capitalise on the growth of the Premier League in the Unites States. I was there recently and while flying I could watch the PL live, It's taking off there - have the Americans made a pitch that there's a market opening up there?
Secondly, could you explain who is proposing to sell shares because you suggested you'd become the second biggest shareholder in the event of a sale, suggests perhaps the Morgans are selling? Also could Huw Cooze say whether any non-Swans Trust directors who are against the idea?
PS: One of the things CN spoke to us about was potential commercial opportunities in the States and it's fair to say they're there for the club. Whether those commercial opportunities extend to 60% of it ending up in their hands to gain access - could we, should we have access to those opportunities without selling those shares - I think it's distinctly possible and we don't necessarily have to sell shares in the football club to be able to exploit that.
As for shareholders - the 30% sale is on a pro-rata basis for any shareholder that wants to sell. We haven't been given any indication there's any other shareholder who doesn't want to sell apart from us - without seeing a full agreement drawn up we can't say differently but that's how we see it.
HC: The board and the shareholders are very different. There's 3 board members who aren't shareholders, plus myself, who wouldn't have a say in this.
PS: The sale of the shares that's currently going on was instigated probably some 18 or 20 months ago by the shareholders. To explain the pro-rata basis, Martin Morgan owns 24% of the club. If 30% was to be sold and between us and the Americans we owned 51%, Morgan would own 24% of the remaining 49%.
Q: Billy Burrows - Paid Member - I think there's an elephant in the room regarding the board saying that the sale would be in the best interests of the club, whereas it now appears that it's quite different and that it seems it benefits them most, selling the shares from personal gain. From what I've read in the paper the Americans didn't come to us with an offer, and it's the trust's, and the fans role to make people aware of this issue - we've done things on the pitch differently to other clubs which has contributed to our success, but it seems now we're just like any other club, open to these takeovers, millionaires etc?
PS: Part of that is potentially, to a degree, the price of Premier League football. The fact we're now a "brand" - and I hate using the phrase - I'm happy to go on record saying Huw Jenkins, Leigh Dineen, Martin Morgan, they are lifelong supporters of Swansea City and what they do and what they believe is in the best interests of the club. Huw made a point earlier - when you're sitting on an investment which cost you say £50k, and it's now worth £5million, it is life changing. For most of us in this room it would be life changing and if it isn't, can you see me afterwards to buy some shares?
Q: Follow up - why say [from the shareholders' point of view] that this sale is in the best interests of the club then? Why not just say it's to make money?
PS: That I can't dispute, I'd much rather it was out there. I'm not going to hide around this. One of the shareholders was instructed by the people that want to sell to go out and try and find a buyer for these shares. Personally I think we've got the first investor who's shown an interest and we're now trying to force a deal through whether it's best for the football club or not.
There may be people out there who genuinely do have the best interests of the club at heart, we just don't know, but we'll deal with it if it happens. We don't believe we've exploited every opportunity we've had as a football club and that's why we're against the sale of any of our shares.
Q: Chris Hughes - Paid Member - People are concerned as to why these people want to buy the shares - would it make a difference if it was a local person, like Terry Matthews for example, if he came in would you be interested or is it just because they're Americans and we're unsure of their reasoning?
PS: I think it's easier to justify if it's a local person. If you think back to what's made this club so succesfful is local owernship and knowing we've got Swansea fans running it. If we can connect a share purchaser to the football club it's easier to justify but it doesn't change our postion as far as I'm concerned - we'd still be looking for those protections that I mentioned earlier. We'd also like a power of veto over major decisions that the club take. We don't want to see this club £50million in debt despite having a turnover of £200million, it's not the ethos that we've worked on and we'd like to be able to veto that if it's a Terry Matthews or a Jim White who comes in with the money.
Q: Lee Jones - It's concerning to hear about shareholders looking for purchasers, because until recently - and I've got a lot of time for the board - Huw was saying Leigh Dineen has gone to San Francisco looking for an investor, whereas actually we're looking to sell shares for personal gain. I've got no problem with that, they took a chance and they deserve their money, but I think they've been disingenuous by mentioning investment when in reality it's just selling for cash. Is there any way we can get that across to the club who keep mentioning investment when in reality it's a sale?
PS: Completely with you on "investment". JM & CN are not investors, and are looking to purchase shares off people we know. Investment can be a loose term because, for example, the commercial team went to India in the summer - not to source a buyer but to try and find some investment through commercial activities but this particular deal isn't investment. It's the potential sale of shares of the club.
Q: Jason Evans - Reporter - You mentioned earlier that you don't believe the deal is anywhere near happening. Someone this evening told us it is unlikely to go ahead and neither party want to pursue it at this time. The club are saying it's not something you want to pursue, but you're saying a deal isn't close?
PS: I'd ask who you mean by the club?
JE: Sources at the club.
<laughter>
PS: You know as much as I do - we did get some form of indication prior to this evening that the deal has gone quiet. If the deal is off it's off and we're more than happy to accept that. It doesn't change our stance, but I don't believe that outside share purchase goes away. The moment someone sees there's a chance to buy in to a reasonably successful PL club there's a reasonable chance a bid will be attracted.
Q: Is there a feeling the club has outgrown it's shareholders?
HC: I think you've got a great point. People are getting tired, they've had 14 years of running it and it is a big business now. Where turnover was £1million it's now £100million and it's only going to grow, and you've got a valid point.
PS: At the London forum a few months back Huw Jenkins & Leigh Dineen were both there and they were late 30's when they took over. They're now in their late 50's and don't believe they can go on forever, but there's no disputing they've built a wonderful legacy for this football club over these 14 years. We had six or seven members of non-playing staff when they took over and we now, Huw tells me, have over 400 working full time at the club. It's a massive organisation and the nice bits the board used to do on a volunteer basis, you can't do it any more. This is why people like Huw & Leigh are here full-time.
Q: Chris Clement - Paid Member - Given the business acumen of the shareholders, it's my understanding this is the first offer we've had to come in for the shares. If it was any other part of his business would he accept a first offer? Were there any negotiations prior to this offer?
PS: There were no negotiations. We were given the heads of terms agreement and that's what we were presented with. It is a deal in so much as we know what their terms are, but what we don't know is what a shareholders agreement would look like. There hasn't been another formal offer for the shares as yet.
Q: Nigel Davies - Two questions. Firstly a potential dirty tricks campaign against the trust and it's interesting Jason raised the point about a difference in information, it seems strange timing to release that tonight. There does seem to be certain leaks and accusations against the trust which come out on message boards and in the press straight after that.
Also how much did the club put in to the Jack To A King project, because it's increasingly looking like a vanity project designed to attract investors to the club?
PS: The timing issue is an interesting one and what we heard earlier on in terms of the deal potentially not going through, and we did think we've got loads of members turning up with nothing to talk about, but we haven't heard anything indicating the deal is definitely off. There are things that get into the press that we look at - after the shareholders meeting the day of the Arsenal game - there were a few things said in the meeting with maybe nine or ten of us in the room, and about two days later stories emerged in the press and then appeared on message boards almost word for word, you do wonder why these things are being leaked but we're in a position where... I don't blame people for wanting to blame the shares. We are the only constant in the club in that we're supporters and it may not be us, but there'll always be fans and we want people to continue and run the trust and carry these shares on.
As for Jack To A King, the club funded that to a tune of £1million.
Q: Has the trust looked to attract it's own backers to help it gain a 25% stake?
PS: If we could find someone to own 30% that would work with our ideals that would be a perfect scenario. We talked earlier on tonight as a group - look at Portsmouth. They went out to fans with money, about 48% is owned by the trust and 52% by local businessmen.
We're not close to that but we'd need help to source these people because you're clearly talking big money people.
Q: Where are we in the expansion of the stadium?
HC: We've all read what's going on, it's still ongoing. We're waiting on the council to pull their finger out, I think the latest is because we're looking to buy the stadium that might have slowed things down, but as far as I know we're still looking to start this summer.
Q: Roy Thomas - Paid Member as of 20 minutes ago - We've got no inclination as to the motives of the Americans. We need clarity of their motive. If they say their £30mil share purchase means another £100mil investment, but just buying shares and giving no idea of their intentions is concerning.
JW: All we can do is do our due diligence, which we have done, but ultimately we can't control that. We just want further answers for what the Americans' ideas would be after acquiring the shares.
Q: With all the talk of sale of shares, what do we need investment for? If naming rights could pay for the stadium, and we've already got our training grounds as they are, so where is this money going to be spent where we currently can't afford it?
HC: We've done a quick totting up and it's probably back-of-a-fag-packet maths but that was say the stadium is £20million, the expansion on one stand is £18million, we need to finish off Landore, we need to build a classroom block to get to Category One plus an indoor barn, that's another £4/5million, the same on Fairwood, you're talking about £50million just to start and you can't take that from the playing budget because as soon as you do, you go down. We need to find other ways, and I'm not saying by share sales, of bringing millions into this football club - how I'm not sure.
PS: The current TV deal is for about £80million a season, and our current wage bill is around £50million. That's where our money goes at this point in time, it is a frightening amount of things that you have to do just to stay afloat in this division, and to go to the next level for me isn't necessarily on the pitch - it's about building the legacy of the club going forward. Huw Jenkins believes we can get to the Champions League, I think it's a bit of a pipe dream for us when you look at the money some other sides pay just to get there.
Q: Richard Evans - Paid Member - Why don't we create more shares to raise more money?
PS: We've spoken about this before, one of the reasons is say we doubled number of shares our share goes from 21% to 10.5%. That is a big downside to us, 10% is a key figure, as long as we're above that we can't be forced to sell, below that and we can in certain situations.
Q: As paid members, if the trust members vote one way do the trust board have to act according to that vote?
PS: The short answer is no. One of the things counsel told us is, the trust board were elected by the members to run the trust in the best way possible, and we can make the decisions as a board. We're pretty unanimous we need to consult with our members on this particular issue, and say this was a consultation and the vote was to sell the shares, we'd have to be pretty confident to go against that.
Q: Yours truly again - The club is earning more money than it ever has done, and the shareholders are looking to sell, is there no way we can put say a constitution in place where say for every dividend payment received the trust ownership increase? I know the wage bill is £50million but we're investing heavily off the field and at some point we'll run out of things to spend money on. I think it's massively pessimistic to assume we're going to be relegated, and even if we do we've got no debt, so I see no reason why the shareholders or anyone else could argue against the trust slowly increasing their percentage in the club over time because given the money coming in you could do that without costing the club a big amount of money?
PS: Going back to the 25%, we're currently 21.3%. The moment it goes above 25% it becomes less of an attraction to share purchasers. Both offers we made to increase our ownership were rejected out of hand so you have to draw the conclusion that as much as people are happy to work alongside us giving us that final piece of... protection...It's not a negative to the club.
The board didn't put money in to this club for profit. They did it to make sure this club survived because there was a real danger it wouldn't, and the fact we've gone on this journey over the last 14 years is a brilliant legacy. The final legacy for me would be for the current board to leave us with a 25.1% shareholding, leaving the football club with the protection for the future as they bow out.
Q: Billy Burrows - Should the trust re-evaluate their role given the increased stature of the club?
PS: I'll pick up on one thing. As a 21% shareholder we can't stop the other shareholders selling their shares but we can make the environment quite hostile. If we publicly came out and said the shareholder has done the wrong thing and denounce it, Swansea is a small place and while the shareholders have perhaps revelled in their popularity over the last few years, I think we've got the power to stop a deal happening. If we as a group decided we didn't want that type of deal I think that power is quite strong.
JW: I think it's about making people see our way of thinking, not marching in like a bull in a chinashop, and Huw is involved on a day to day basis to make that happen.
PS: Just to elaborate on that point, I asked Huw what he did earlier to understand it to explain it properly, but he is the supporters liaison officer, the supporters director, he sits on the safety advisory group plus so much more, and he's a volunteer and I think to give up his time to do all this if fantastic. All of us are volunteers, and I think what we need to do is be more vocal in terms of what we do, and what Huw Cooze does for us.
Q: When this new TV deal comes in shouldn't ticket prices be reduced?
HC: We took it straight to the board. I thought it was important to get in there before greedy agents and players got in there, and one board member who shall remain nameless said "it's not next season it's the one after next". Anyway, we're still arguing but I'm sure we'll get there.
Q: I just want to say that if anyone uses social media because organisations like the Baltimore Jacks and other fans in America are trying to get fans to sign up to the trust, we're global now. I've seen we've got fans in Argentina now and we should be looking to capitalise on this.
HC: Nothing has given me more pleasure than going to the US to the Miller Park, where there must have been 2 or 3 thousand Swans fans. It was fantastic.
JW: We're happy to take our forums all over the country and we've spoken about looking at doing a New York forum too.
Q: It seems to me if the clubs falls into foreign hands, the only way it'll come back into local hands is if the club goes bust. Given that every year the club stays in the PL it becomes more valuabale, would it be possible to use a leverage buyout like the Glaziers did with Man Utd?
PS: I wish our legal guy Dai Little was here. See me afterwards...
Q: For Huw, in my eyes we're small fry really and have about 10 sponsorship deals - what is the club doing to improve that?
HC: I suppose we are on the back foot a bit, we know that. We've joined forces with TLC, a London marketing company, who are out there scouring the world looking for deals for us and it should pay dividends, but if come May or this summer if we don't have any more deals they obviously they aren't doing their job. The commercial team is bigger and stronger than ever and we fight on.
Q: Those blinking advertising boards? Why haven't they been removed, or at least removed until the end of a HSE investigation?
PS: We didn't know they were coming, it was as much a surprise to us as it was to you. Leigh has assured us he's done everything he can do dim them and met Huw Cooze in the last board meeting in the last 2 weeks. We've been assured they're as dim, and as slow-changing, as they now can be but anything which detracts from the match experience needs raising.
Q: The Bony money? Surely that's a lot of the aforementioned £50million needed for planned works?
HC: Wilf's money is coming in three stages, we had I think £8million this January, then something in the summer and something in January again. We have to be realistic, we need a striker so we'll probably spend £10-15million on a striker in the summer, yes some of that will be used to buy other squad players and some will be used for infrastructure.
Q: What is the Trust's opinion about club employees being paid the living wage?
HC: I can only say I don't think there is anyone on the living wage, perhaps staff working for Stadco but I don't think it's something the club is currently enforcing.
Apologies if I've missed anything. I hope this is of interest to many fans, and inspires people to join the Supporters Trust. To do so, click here: Link