US chicken chain that's 'better than KFC and Popeyes' set to open on Swansea's Wind Street
US chicken chain that's 'better than KFC and Popeyes' set to open on Swansea's Wind Street
It promises to deliver 'cooked-to-order chicken and authentic Southern hospitality at its finest'
Slim Chickens, the beloved American fast-casual brand known for its signature Southern comfort food
(Image: Slim Chickens )
Popular chicken chain restaurant Slim Chickens is set to open up one of its newest branches in Swansea. The Southern-inspired restaurant, which first opened in Arkansas in 2003, will open a new spot in the south Wales city, together with other locations in London's Leicester Square, Wembley and Edgeware Road, along with the west and east Midlands, Reading and Newcastle.
It is understood the new venue will open its doors along Wind Street, following on from another popular chicken hotspot, Wingstop, which also arrived there in recent months.
Some of the chain's menu items include buttermilk marinated chicken tenders, chicken wings, boneless bites, sandwiches, salads, wraps, fries, and a range of 14 house dipping sauces. For the latest restaurant news and reviews, sign up to our food and drink newsletter here .
The dipping sauces include blue cheese, buffalo, cayenne ranch, gravy mayo, honey mustard, Korean BBQ, Slim Sauce and a limited-time "Unknown" sauce.
Slim Chickens is set to open in Swansea
(Image: Leicestershire Live/Tristan Potter )
According to the UK menu, a three-piece tender meal will set you back £10.95, while a four-piece costs £12.45, a five-piece sits at £13.45, and a seven-piece is £14.95.
Article continues below
The chain also offers a plant-based version, and the most expensive meal you can order is the "best of both" five and five tender and wing meal, which costs £16.95 and is served with Texas toast, seasoned fries, house sauces and a bottomless soft drink.
Ben Blore, head of operations at Slim Chickens, said: "We couldn't be more excited to bring Slim Chickens to these locations.
"Our team has been dedicated to making sure every guest experiences our fresh, cooked-to-order chicken and authentic Southern hospitality at its finest."
The chicken shop chain first made its way across the pond to the UK in 2018 after launching in the US state of Arkansas in 2003.
Currently, it has over 65 sites in the UK, with restaurants in Wolverhampton, Leeds, Bournemouth and Belfast. It also has venues in Cardiff and Brigend.
In the states, it has over 200.
Popeyes also revealed plans to open its doors in Swansea back in January 2024, but the wait goes on.
At the beginning of this year, the chain said that "the landlord has experienced delays in being able to commence the construction of the drive-thru" and that it was "in their hands". You can read more about that by clicking here.
On social media, fans have raved about the chain over the last few years. On Instagram, one person said the food "looks phenomenal", while on Reddit, another said "prefer it over KFC". Over on X, there were similar sentiments, with one person posting: "Slim Chickens is the best chicken place I have ever been to and it's not even close.." Another added: "What is the best fried chicken franchise and why is it Slim Chickens?" A third said: "Slim chickens is much better if you want good chicken, better than both KFC and Popeyes imo."
Article continues below
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
'Emerging markets no longer on the periphery of progress'
Over the past decade, many investors have looked at EM with a mixture of caution and nostalgia, haunted by memories of currency crises and political turmoil. But today's EM landscape looks very different. Structural reform, rising domestic consumption, and tech-led innovation are combining to produce companies and economies that are adaptable and profitable. This transformation is perhaps best captured by businesses like a 'super-app' used by the majority of the adult Kazak population for everything from banking and bill payments, to shopping and ride-hailing. It has fundamentally reshaped the country's economy. Or take Luckin Coffee in China, which now has many more outlets than Starbucks and continues to grow rapidly into an underpenetrated market. These aren't speculative moonshots. They are scaling in key domestic markets with improving profitability and thus operational resilience. Two key headwinds - the strong US dollar and negative sentiment towards China - have been turning. An increasing amount of EM-to-EM trade is being done in non-dollar currencies. The weak dollar is not only supportive of EM financial conditions but also creates favourable sentiment at a time when there are plenty of reasons to ask questions of the traditional safe-haven countries of the world. With over $22 trillion held by non-US investors in American assets - much of it unhedged - even a small shift in allocation could drive renewed EM demand. Meanwhile, China's trajectory is not solely about geopolitics or trade policy, as some doomsayers posit. In fact, this may be the wrong focus completely. It's about a massive, increasingly self-sufficient domestic economy. Retail sales in China are over ten times greater than its exports to the US - a fact that should redirect our focus from tariffs to the consumer. Companies like Meituan and DeepSeek are testament to China's technological resilience. And for what it's worth, over 70% of the world now trades more with China than with the US. On top of this, Chinese consumer spending is visibly starting to recover. Read more: We often talk about EM as if it were a single monolith. It is not. What binds these regions is clearly not geography or even income level. But the quality of opportunity and scale of ambition across such a vast set of countries is trending upwards and worth shouting about. There are many more world class EM companies than before, in a range of industries: in semiconductors, gaming, fintech, and green energy, to name a few. For example, CATL in electric vehicle batteries, SK Hynix in High Bandwith Memory (memory chips used for high-performance computing and AI), and Tencent and SEA in gaming. The best companies earn their place in portfolios through world-class execution, deep competitive moats, high returns on capital, and often, scarcity of competition. EM's best companies are, in many cases, the only game in town for investors seeking exposure to essential themes like electrification, digital transformation, and resource resilience. Perhaps the most dangerous risk for investors today is underexposure to this transformation. Valuations remain modest. Domestic markets are deepening. Currency, debt, and governance risks - while still present - are far better managed than in previous cycles. And most importantly, these companies are not all reliant on a rebound in global trade or commodity prices. Many are thriving in local ecosystems, with local customers, on local capital. This is not to say the path ahead is smooth. Politics is messy (though isn't that true in developed markets too?). Markets are often volatile. But the direction of travel is clear. Emerging markets are no longer on the periphery of progress - they are increasingly the protagonists. To ignore them is not caution, it's more likely negligence. Andrew Keiller is a partner at Baillie Gifford
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump approval rating tanks as Americans oppose GOP agenda
It's summer now, and the report card has arrived. Americans give Trump a failing grade on the budget, trade and immigration. That's tough to swallow for a politician who gauges everything on public perception. Trump, being Trump, is now pivoting to distractions, touting a military parade that flopped as an expensive boondoggle and then flipping from diplomacy with Iran to potentially ordering air strikes on that country. Take our poll: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? | Opinion Americans disapprove of budget bill slashing Medicaid Let's start with Trump's budget, which Republican leaders in Congress call the "one big, beautiful bill" in honor of their continuing deference to whatever he wants and the dereliction of their duty to serve as a coequal branch of our government. The version that narrowly passed the House slashed federal safety net programs to boost tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Some senators, seeking to make things even better for the rich at the expense of the poor, want bigger cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other programs. Opinion: Trump lied about the LA protests so you wouldn't see what he's really doing A batch of recent polls shows Americans reject that: A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found that 53% of American voters oppose the budget bill, while 27% approve it. Nearly half of the voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while 40% said it should stay the same and just 10% wanted it cut. A June 16 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid, while 31% say we spend enough and just 18% say we spend too much. Forty-five percent of Americans think we should spend more on food and nutrition assistance, while 30% say we spend enough and 24% say we spend too much. A June 17 KFF Health Tracking Poll found that 64% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Trump's budget bill, while 83% of them hold a favorable view of Medicaid. Republican support for the bill came in strong at 61% at first, but then dropped by 20 points when the Republicans polled heard details about how the legislation would force millions off their health care plans. Polling finds Americans disagree with Trump on immigration, economy, border security This much seems clear: The more Americans learn about Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the more they find it small-minded and ugly. That explains the artificial deadlines. Opinion newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress want to wrap this up by July 4. But Republican infighting - moderates who fear it goes too far, far-righters who complain it doesn't go far enough - will make for a contentious Congress for at least the next two weeks. While we wait, Trump is seeing his support on immigration - once his strongest issue - melt away in the summer of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The Quinnipiac University poll found 54% of the registered voters surveyed opposed his approach to immigration, while 43% approve and 3% had no opinion. Trump campaigned in 2024 on reviving America's economy. But his trade wars, which have hit our country's international allies just as hard or harder than our geopolitical foes, are unpopular. Quinnipiac found that just 38% approve of Trump's trade policy, while 57% disapprove and 6% had no opinion. The AP-NORC poll found that 32% of Americans think we spend too much on border security, while 37% think we spend the right amount and 29% think we spend too little. Trump's approval rating continues to tank. Does it matter? In this time of divisiveness, a majority of Americans can agree on one thing: Trump is disappointing them as president. Just 38% of the votes surveyed by Quinnipiac approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove. Opinion: Threats against judges nearly doubled under Trump. Republicans blame the victim. That tracks with a Pew Research Center poll released June 17, which found that 41% of those polled approve of Trump's performance while 58% disapprove. Pew noted that Trump has lost ground in his approval rating since he was sworn into office again on Jan. 20. Don't expect Trump to spend too much time worrying about what Americans tell pollsters. He has a long history of touting polls when they hold good news for him and dismissing them when they don't. He also suggested just before the 2024 election that releasing poll results he didn't like "should be illegal." Here's what you can expect: more distractions from Trump as the Republicans fights it out on which version of his budget bill passes or fails in Congress. If they listened to Americans, they would kill the bill and start from scratch. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
How Trump cuts to universities could trickle down to college sports
USA TODAY Sports contacted more than 25 universities and college leadership organizations to ask them about concerns that athletics could be affected at least indirectly by this federal funding uncertainty. Almost all of them dodged the question by not responding at all, or by providing vague, undetailed answers, or by saying they didn't want to talk about it on the record. "I'm not surprised that nobody wants to talk, particularly at red-state public universities," said Robert Kelchen, a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee. "It's such a touchy topic right now." At the same time, many of the same colleges are bracing for another coming financial earthquake after a federal judge recently approved the House vs. NCAA legal settlement. This allowed colleges to start paying their athletes directly for the first time ever, creating a massive new cost of up to $20.5 million per school per year starting July 1, according to the NCAA. Trouble and tension in major college sports Add it all together and tensions have started simmering during a titanic moment in history for higher education and college sports. Expenses are going up in athletic departments while the other side of campus remains anxious about Trump cuts to higher education, such as grants for medical and scientific research. "There's never been a time in college sports where so many issues have hit at once - both with the squeeze on institutional support and now this brand-new way of doing business in college sports," said Amy Perko, CEO of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. USA TODAY Sports examined how it might affect athletics, why it's a sensitive topic and what some schools are doing about it. How the federal uncertainty trickles down Trump's attempted funding cutbacks at American universities aren't directly related to college sports. They instead largely involve funding for research at these universities, including from the National Institutes of Health, which faces $18 billion in cuts under the Trump administration. But as part of their universities, most athletic departments depend on university financial support to pay the bills. And when universities face funding shortfalls, they have to make decisions about what to cut and where. That's where that institutional support for athletics could get squeezed. Out of 232 Division I public schools tracked by USA TODAY Sports in fiscal year 2023, only 12 athletic departments reported receiving no institutional support from their schools, including from student fees or university transfers. That includes big football schools such as Ohio State, Penn State, Texas and LSU. On the other end of the spectrum, 75 Division I public schools received at least $20 million in university support from their schools in fiscal year 2023, including from student fees. Sixteen received direct institutional support from their schools of more than $20 million, not counting student fees, led by Houston ($39.7 million), California ($36.7 million), Cincinnati ($35.5 million) and Connecticut ($30.2 million). "As a matter of basic math, less money from any source will constrain any university's ability to make discretionary decisions about how to allocate their finite resources," said Roger Pielke, emeritus professor at the University of Colorado. "Something then has to give - either more revenues are needed or some activities must be cut back. If athletics demands more funding (such as for paying athletes) that compounds the issues." A number of examples have emerged. At the University of Washington In March, the provost at the University of Washington sent out a message outlining the financial risks the university was facing, including state budget shortfalls and the "unprecedented and rapid policy changes at the federal level." The provost mentioned possible cutbacks including "pausing non-essential staff hiring," limiting faculty hiring and reducing food purchases and other discretionary spending. "These measures apply to all units that report to the President and Provost, including Athletics," university spokesman Victor Balta confirmed to USA TODAY Sports. How that applied to athletics isn't clear. The university didn't get into detail about that when asked about it. But the athletic department received $10 million direct institutional support in fiscal 2024. Now the House settlement is also pressuring the Huskies, too, just like all the other schools in major college sports. The Huskies are projecting a $19 million deficit in athletics for fiscal year 2026. Loans will help cover the gap, including $10 million from the Big Ten Conference in the form of a revenue-sharing advance and more from an "internal loan of institutional funds," Balta said. "Rising expenses and back damages related to the House settlement are factors, as are expenses associated with transitioning to the Big Ten Conference," Balta said. "UW Athletics did execute required budget reductions and revenue enhancements in their approved FY26 operating budget - they were not held harmless in this exercise related to overall budget concerns." At Michigan State This is happening to different degrees at other universities, too, each dealing with it in different ways. At Michigan State, for example, President Kevin Guskiewicz sent a message to faculty and staff fin May, noting financial challenges that included navigating "federal policies and directives that undercut our ability to advance our land-grant mission and continue essential research projects that make life better." A subsequent memo went to university leaders calling for a 9% base reduction in university-wide general funds over the next two years. Asked if that included MSU athletics, university spokeswoman Amber McCann replied, "The reductions are to general funds across the university." Additional details were not provided. MSU athletics received less than $650,000 in direct institutional support in fiscal 2024 and $3.6 million in indirect institutional support in the form of costs covered by the university but not charged to athletics. MSU athletics also reported an annual operating deficit of $16.7 million for fiscal 2024. But even at the small number of schools that provide little or no institutional support for athletics, disharmony can increase across campus if athletic departments are insulated from university budget cuts. Take Nebraska, for example. Is athletics 'sharing the pain?' The University of Nebraska Board of Regents on June 19 approved a 5% tuition increase amid financial challenges that included less state funding than they asked for and an estimated federal funding reduction of nearly $12 million. The new budget included $18 million in cuts and no funding for pay increases for university staff. But over in the athletic department, football coach Matt Rhule is set to get a $1 million pay increase this year, then another $1 million more in 2026, according to the terms of his contract. Athletic director Troy Dannen is set for a $100,000 annual raise. The athletic department didn't respond to an inquiry about it. "There is a feeling that the athletic department should be sharing the pain," said Jordan Gonzales, president of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Staff Senate. Nebraska is one of the relatively few schools in the nation that reported receiving no university support for athletics in fiscal 2023. Even so, any immunity from university austerity measures adds to the perception that athletic departments are becoming increasingly detached from their universities as they move to become more like professional sports. "When the university asks its core academic support staff to tighten their belts and absorb budget cuts while the athletic department appears to operate under a separate set of financial rules, it fosters a sense of two separate universities - one that's facing austerity and another that is investing in and entering into multimillion deals and contracts," Gonzales said. Why it's a sensitive subject As the Trump administration targets certain colleges such as Harvard for funding cuts, others are wary of becoming the next target. When resources shrink on campus, discord also intensifies about university priorities and who is or isn't taking on a fair share of the burden. Some colleges might not even want to talk about any cutbacks in sports because now is the time they want to appear flush with cash to pay athletes. Among those that didn't respond to inquiries about federal funding cuts affecting athletics were UCLA, Virginia, Stanford, Minnesota, Houston, Northwestern, Harvard and the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics. "I think people are laying low," said Ruth Johnston, vice president of consulting at the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). "I think people are wanting to wait and see a little bit." In the meantime, the pressure mounts for Division I athletic departments to spend money on players, all the way up to the initial cap of $20.5 million. Not doing so would mean falling behind the competition. "They need more money right now," said James Nussbaum, a former Northwestern football player and in-house counsel at Indiana University now at the firm Church Church Hittle + Antrim. "It's those schools in the middle that are going to be really interesting to watch as they try to figure out if they want to continue to fund athletics at the level they have been as it becomes more and more clear that they're not going to be able to compete with those top-tier schools, just from a resource standpoint." Where will the money come from? Some athletic departments are getting students to help pay the bills. Some are getting more from their universities. Some might pursue other sources: ? The Board of Governors for the State University System of Florida on June 18 granted permission for state universities to give a $22.5 million annual lifeline to athletics through at least June 2028. ? At the University of Michigan, athletic director Warde Manuel sent a letter to supporters after the House settlement was approved, saying his department faced a projected deficit of $27 million for the 2025-26 academic year, including $20.5 million for paying players. The letter asked for support and mentioned a planned 10% reduction in staff, in addition to other cost-cutting moves. Spokesman Dave Ablauf said the university also has offered the department a loan of up to $15 million. ? Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry recently signed a bill to increase taxes on sports gambling, helping raise more than $20 million to be divided among 11 state universities for athletics, including LSU. Incidentally, LSU athletics is not subject to university cutbacks there because it is considered "auxiliary" to the university, according to the Louisiana Illuminator in April. LSU didn't respond to a follow-up question about that from USA TODAY Sports. ? At the University of Colorado Boulder, the school approved an increase of the student athletic fee from $28.50 to $90 per semester, the first change to this fee since 1994. Funding from it was to support women's sports scholarships and non-revenue sports. ? At Virginia Tech, student athletic fees are set to go up by $295 annually, up to $732. ? At Wichita State, the university proposed a 3.5% tuition increase, citing the challenging financial landscape for higher education, as well as the House settlement. ? At the University of Kansas, Chancellor Douglas Girod told the Lawrence Journal-World that KU athletics possibly could pay the university a reduced tuition rate for its athletes. ? Private investment in athletics is on the way. Elevate, a sports strategy and marketing company, recently announced the launch of the Collegiate Investment Initiative to provide colleges with "capital and strategic resources to develop revenue-generating projects." What those schools must provide in return for that is not yet clear. Johnston of NACUBO said "everything is going to be affected" by federal funding cuts at the top, in addition to the big new cost for athletic departments. New sources of funding are needed in the absence of cutbacks. "It's not gonna go back to normal," Johnston said. "I think we' re in an inflection point." Contributing: Steve Berkowitz Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. Email: bschrotenb@
