Seems like 80-85% on this board are certain that all bad things are courtesy of SISU.
That if they only shower the club with a few extra milions everything will be fine.
But it may not be as simple as that.
SISU have already invested >25mio Pounds. That is actually quite a lot of money. And as long as the club is losing money, they keep covering the deficit ... or they have at least till now.
SISU were presented with a business plan for the take over. Somebody pursuaded them that it would be a good business opportunity and that they could make a profit. That somebody was RR and SISU told him 'if this is such a great idea, then you must put your own money at risk. Do that and we will put in the rest.'
SISU probably also made it very clear from the start, that they had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever as to run a football club, so RR as chairman made perfect sense - especially as he became shareholder himself. His decisions - good or bad - would also determine if his own investment would come good.
I would imagine that SISU and Ranson agreed on a three year financial plan. And I take it the goal was to make the club profitable within the timeframe.
The three years are up these days and has the goal been achieved?
I don't think so, and in the business world this means that heads are going to get chopped.
This season - Ransons 'delivery' season has been littered with odd decisions that in my mind shows how poor a leader Ranson really is.
The worst decision was signing MK9 when this meant the wage budget went bust. I guess Ranson agreed to the signing because AB promissed a 20+ goal striker that would take us to the upper part of the table - thus ensuring more people at the gate - thus more money going in. I also guess that AB promissed to lower the wage budget by selling off whoever would command a fee - even Westwood in January - and letting others go out on loan.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Famous words by Karl Marx.
I am sure Ranson and Boothroyd had all the best intentions when they signed the players they did. Supporters can argue if they signed the right players - McSheffrey, Carsley, MK9, O'Donnavan to name a few that we supporters have discussed the value of, but at the end of the day they were signed for a reason.
I also believe Ranson and Boothroyd had all the right intentions when they broke the wage budget even though the income from the gates were in decline.
But at the end of the day - Their decisions meant that there were no money left for new players in the January window. And as they could not get any money from selling Westie - they couldn't even bring in short time loans.
Back to my headline.
Is this all SISU's fault?
I would say NO. SISU have done nothing wrong. They have lived up to their part of the bargain - the one who have failed is Ranson.
His decisions brought the club to where it is financially.
We cannot blame SISU for not 'just write another checque' and we should not behave like spoiled children who scream at their parents for not getting one more icecream.
SISU are in as INVESTORS. They are not sugardaddys. They took a calculated risk when they agreed to the adventure, but all they have done so far is deliver 'stupid money'. Clever decisions should have been made by Ranson and if he had succeded it would have been the perfect match.
It will be interesting to see what SISU will do next, but you can't blame them for not sticking to their side of the bargain - they have.
That if they only shower the club with a few extra milions everything will be fine.
But it may not be as simple as that.
SISU have already invested >25mio Pounds. That is actually quite a lot of money. And as long as the club is losing money, they keep covering the deficit ... or they have at least till now.
SISU were presented with a business plan for the take over. Somebody pursuaded them that it would be a good business opportunity and that they could make a profit. That somebody was RR and SISU told him 'if this is such a great idea, then you must put your own money at risk. Do that and we will put in the rest.'
SISU probably also made it very clear from the start, that they had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever as to run a football club, so RR as chairman made perfect sense - especially as he became shareholder himself. His decisions - good or bad - would also determine if his own investment would come good.
I would imagine that SISU and Ranson agreed on a three year financial plan. And I take it the goal was to make the club profitable within the timeframe.
The three years are up these days and has the goal been achieved?
I don't think so, and in the business world this means that heads are going to get chopped.
This season - Ransons 'delivery' season has been littered with odd decisions that in my mind shows how poor a leader Ranson really is.
The worst decision was signing MK9 when this meant the wage budget went bust. I guess Ranson agreed to the signing because AB promissed a 20+ goal striker that would take us to the upper part of the table - thus ensuring more people at the gate - thus more money going in. I also guess that AB promissed to lower the wage budget by selling off whoever would command a fee - even Westwood in January - and letting others go out on loan.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Famous words by Karl Marx.
I am sure Ranson and Boothroyd had all the best intentions when they signed the players they did. Supporters can argue if they signed the right players - McSheffrey, Carsley, MK9, O'Donnavan to name a few that we supporters have discussed the value of, but at the end of the day they were signed for a reason.
I also believe Ranson and Boothroyd had all the right intentions when they broke the wage budget even though the income from the gates were in decline.
But at the end of the day - Their decisions meant that there were no money left for new players in the January window. And as they could not get any money from selling Westie - they couldn't even bring in short time loans.
Back to my headline.
Is this all SISU's fault?
I would say NO. SISU have done nothing wrong. They have lived up to their part of the bargain - the one who have failed is Ranson.
His decisions brought the club to where it is financially.
We cannot blame SISU for not 'just write another checque' and we should not behave like spoiled children who scream at their parents for not getting one more icecream.
SISU are in as INVESTORS. They are not sugardaddys. They took a calculated risk when they agreed to the adventure, but all they have done so far is deliver 'stupid money'. Clever decisions should have been made by Ranson and if he had succeded it would have been the perfect match.
It will be interesting to see what SISU will do next, but you can't blame them for not sticking to their side of the bargain - they have.