New article on Guardian online - 2nd on today (1 Viewer)

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
Damian Collins, a key member of the parliamentary culture, media and sport committee, has written to the sports minister, Hugh Robertson, expressing concern about Coventry City's ownership after the Football League said it does not know who owns the Championship club.

Since a takeover in 2008 which rescued Coventry from collapsing under £40m of bank debt, the club has been owned by unnamed investment funds, managed by a private equity company based in Hanover Street, Mayfair – Sisu Capital. A Sisu partner, Onye Igwe, manages the fund and is an active Coventry City director but he confirmed in an interview with the Guardian that the investors in Sisu's fund have not been publicly declared: "The funds for Coventry City are from institutional investors, some European, some American, some from overseas and some high-net-worth individuals," he said. "They are professional investors and they want confidentiality, which is normal practice in private equity."

Collins said he believes this is unsatisfactory because supporters have a right to know who ultimately owns their clubs. In his letter to Robertson the Conservative MP said the Football League should demand clubs say who owns them: "The football authorities should reframe their rules on club ownership to require a greater degree of transparency."

Collins took a lead during the committee's inquiry into football governance this year, questioning the structure of Leeds United, which was owned by trusts registered in offshore tax havens for six years until in May the club announced its chairman, Ken Bates, had bought it. The committee published its report in July, saying of Leeds's previous ownership: "There is no more blatant an example of lack of transparency."

Football League rules, identical to those in the Premier League, require clubs to make public the names of anybody "owning or controlling 10% or more of the interests in a club". The league told Collins that at Coventry no individual controls more than 10% and therefore nobody had to be identified, the same position the league adopted over Leeds when it was owned by the offshore trusts.

Collins recommended in his letter that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs supports the football authorities "in trying to discover the ultimate ownership of football clubs". That echoed the committee's call in its report for the FA to carry out "a thorough investigation" into who owned Leeds between 2005 and this year and "if necessary to seek the assistance of HMRC". The FA has not responded, choosing to wait for the government's response, which Robertson's office said he is expected to finalise next month.

Collins, though, has gone further than calling for an investigation into ownership, saying the Football League should require all clubs to say who owns them, "as a condition of playing in the competition" – and be excluded from the league if they refused. "This is another example of football fans not knowing who owns their club," Collins told the Guardian. "I think this is wrong and have written to Hugh Robertson asking him to consider this when he responds to the select committee's report."

The sudden focus on the undeclared investors behind Coventry has taken Sisu somewhat by surprise at a time when, having spent £30m to no greatly positive effect, Igwe has acknowledged he needs to take more of a public role and explain their plans to supporters.

He said the investors are not mysterious, mostly not offshore, and many are "significant institutions" with which the public would feel comfortable but the nature of private equity investing is that they remain confidential. Igwe said they are "passive investors" who leave him to manage the fund and Coventry City: "We are not being anonymous: the funds and club are under the management of Sisu Capital, I am the fund's manager and a partner in Sisu, that is public."

An investment firm known for taking over debt-distressed companies and others they believe they can turn round, Sisu became interested in buying a Championship club around five years ago. They considered Southampton and Derby County before taking over at Coventry, in partnership with Ray Ranson, the entrepreneur and former Manchester City right-back, who became the chairman. Igwe said the investors in Sisu's funds are "agnostic" about what the firm would buy; they were interested in making a profit from their investments, although this could be delivered in eight to 10 years rather than rapidly. Championship clubs have increasingly become a target for buyers from afar, who see potential windfalls from winning promotion to the Premier League's multi-million pound honeypot.

For Coventry and Sisu, however, the course of securing that return has been far from smooth. Relegated from the Premier League in 2001 after a remarkable 34 years in the top flight, the Sky Blues had latterly sunk into £40m debts under the previous owners, who included Geoffrey Robinson, the Labour government's former paymaster-general. Although a high-quality new stadium, the Ricoh Arena, had been built and in 2005 Coventry moved to it from Highfield Road, home since 1899, the club itself does not own even a slice of the new ground.

The arena is owned jointly by Coventry City Council and a charitable trust named after the father of Sir Derek Higgs, a former club director, and the club pays close to £1.2m in rent to play there. All the income from the arena's sponsorship, and from food and drink bought by fans, goes to the arena company, not the club. This, Igwe says, makes it difficult for City to make enough money to compete, a problem set to worsen with financial fair-play break-even rules due to be applied in the Championship. "We do have a long-term plan to buy 50% of the stadium," Igwe said. "It is a very important part of our strategy to make the club successful."

Stripped of income sources that its Championship rivals do their best to milk, Sisu has spent £30m and haemorrhaged losses, £6m in the year to 31 May 2010, £8m the previous year, yet made no impact on the league. In March this year Sisu marshalled a "reorganisation" of the club which saw Ranson leave and have his £1.6m loans repaid, together with interest of £310,000.

Under the management of the former chief scout Andy Thorn, and the coach Steve Harrison, Igwe said he believes the changes have been positive, although the club face Blackpool on Tuesday in 22nd place, having started the season in relegation form.

For the Mayfair private equity firm, investment in football sees it a long way still from delivering a Premier League return to fans or investors – and now facing unfamiliar demands to state who those backers are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/.../coventry-city-ownership-sisu-damian-collins?
 

The CableGuy

Well-Known Member
Great read, thanks for that. Already a few comments on that article from non-City fans along the lines of: "Cov City fans deserve better."
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
can someone explain to me how, if the league don't know who the owners are, they know that none of the shareholders have investment or involvement in other clubs? everyone kicked of about the Hoff bid being linked with Wilkinson but how do we know the same kind of thing isn't going on. Or even worse we have owners with criminal connections, using the club for money laundering or who have been involved in match fixing? there should without a doubt be a rule that any shareholder in a club has to be publicly named. The football league could enforce a rule like this and with a bit of luck we're starting to see pressure on them to do just that.
 

georgehudson

Well-Known Member
go for it damian,
an incisive piece of investigative work,
over to you sisu for your next bout of 'guff'
and seriously if our governmental system works,
i await as a 'true sky blue'
the outcome

PUSB
 

Bennets Afro

Well-Known Member
So basically SISU wanted to know the backers of hoffman and leaked at least one to the press, but will not disclose their own backers because they want privacy

Turns more into a joke everyday!!!!
 

SkyBlueScottie

Well-Known Member
Ultimately Onye, describing the nature of private investment does not really cut it when the leagues rules are against it....
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
just a few questions/comments ....... largely practicalities

1) what difference would knowing make
2) how would anything change by knowing
3) why is it an issue for MP's now when SISU have been here 4 years?
4) would we still owe the funds £30m if we knew their names with no real prospect of repaying them
5) what rules have been broken
6) how far do you want to take this tranparency of ownership
7) The funds members do not manage the investment SISU do - control isnt just about owning the shares

Uk investment funds have to make returns to HMRC - it isnt that HMRC cant get the info. The league may have members details but agreed to a confidentiality clause or even the rules dont allow disclosure by the league of investors owning less than 10%

Before I hear the calls of SISU lover - read my other posts. We need to deal with what is in terms of our finances and the requirements of the league. As for Covmad carrying the headline of club facing expulsion - sensationalist claptrap because no current rule broken

To be clear, of course i want to know who the investors are - but the difference that knowledge makes to the club in practical terms is zip.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Unless they have interests in other clubs OSB .Igwe statement tells us a bit more to the masterplan,ie;the investors want a return on their investment ,this is likely to be over8-10 yrs ,rather than rapidly and states stadium purchase as essential ,do we see that happening?:thinking about:
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
The need for transpency is evident in that Ranson was open to scrutiny through his 16% holding in city,as he left us in march/april he was coming under scrutiny from the league into his dealing with a company called SAC,who were making loans to cardiff,allegedly controling when if and how players could be transferred/sold,it seems he's been involved in a similar way @leeds @ some point don't know if thats recently or back when they were pushing in europe,there is link to this adjascent in the article link @the top of the thread:D
 
Last edited:

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
Main reason I want to know who these investors are is that if they think Cov City was a viable investment then I have a castle in Warwick that I am turning into luxury flats that they may want to invest in or failing that I have some magic beans to sell. I guess Igwe's brother in the Nigerian government has already enlisted there help in moving funds out of the country.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
The magic bean ashbyjan,is the stadium,and igwe reckons 8-10yrs willsee areturn on their investment ,aerial bacon as someone put it the other day
 

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
They have had three and a half years to buy 50% share from the Higgs Trust at a fixed formula price that I believe is way below market value but but they haven't done it and this option is running out soon - not sure exactly when - so is the lack of investment in the team simply to divert funds into a buy the stadium fund at the expense of the playing side? Is this why the "new plan" isn't being disclosed to us mere peasants?
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
As I suggested in a thread a couple of weeks back ,does it suit there efforts in attempting negotiation with the other parties ,to have us struggling,,, even sinking,to twist their arm far enough to negotiate:thinking about:
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
wouldnt have thought so wingy because the council have been pretty clear they wont sell to CCFC unless CCFC is viable (council can veto Higgs sale). SISU want and need CCFC successful its the only way they get their money back
 

Sub

Well-Known Member
SISU wanted to own us to get to ownership of the stadium in my opinion and unfortunatly they fooked up on that one now they are stuck with CCFC and no stadium!! so the council are right not to sell it to them !!
 

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
Even if they did have half the stadium it will be decades before they are seeing a profit on their initial investment (the so called £30million) and the cost of buying the 50%, say £10m. If ACL makes £1m profit a year and is allowed to pay out 50% as dividends that would earn them £250k a year - thats 160 years to get their investment back. Surely the only reason to get stadium would be to plough any profits back into club, improve playing side and get promotion - hopefully quicker than 160 years! Certainly get their money back quicker that way and we would have a winning side - lashings of ginger beer all round wot wot! If thats the plan Igwe tell us and we might support it and you can save money on orange clad goons frisking old ladies.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Possibly Ashbyjan ,but if they could get control of ACL entirely ,they'immediately save 1.2m a yr in rent ,and service the lease @500,000per yr to the council,they would be able to take advantage of dividends entirely ,there is definately room to make more out of it .ACLgenerate quite a bit of income ,but it does'nt nessecarilly suit them to make too much or they end up paying a super rent to the council.the freehold for the ground is worth very little while ACL hold such a long lease,so @ the moment the real value is ACL ,if the independant valuation of the lease is correct the freehold should in theory come quite cheaply
 

ashbyjan

Well-Known Member
But why would the council sell them the other half of ACL at a discounted price? Doubt that ACL, via the council 50%, are manipulating their profits so as to pay less to, effectively, themseves.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
ITs not nessacarilly worth so much once we're 50% stakeholders,possibly by keeping profits lower they invest what they make in the stadium rather than pay the increased rent ,or self interest and fatter saleries,don't think there would be any discount in the price for ACL but it is worth less once we have a stake.ps £10m@250000=40yrs
 
Last edited:

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Think this could if followed through by Mr Collins have a very serious implication for CCFC

what he also said was

"When a club gets into financial difficulties it's the fans that suffer and it's also local businesses that are owed money by that football club that suffer.
"If the Football League and the Premier League were to turn around to Coventry and say, 'it's not good enough, you've got to have a declared owner of the club otherwise we won't let you play', I think you'd see a change."

going to play devils advocate for a while

It isnt possible for CCFC to state they have one particular owner - it simply isnt set up that way if you take it that no one owns more than 10%. The MP thinks it is simply a case of someone standing up and being the owner - it cant be done so simplistically.

Now I am not argueing against knowing who is involved in the funds but consider the board of Directors of Barclays (a global company with far more impact than CCFC) who do not own the bank but they do control it. There isnt one "declared owner" but there is a register of shareholders. Why should CCFC be different?. Equally there will be fund managers or trust funds holding shares in Barclays but Barclays wont know who the members of those funds are. Again why should CCFC be different?

The MP's end game is kick the club out if there isnt one "declared owner" - there is no rule that there should be ....wouldnt fancy being the leagues committee when they receive the solicitors letter demanding £30m in compensation payable to SISU. But kick the club out and the biggest loser as well as the local trades is SISU - out of pocket to tune of £30m simply because an MP or two wanted to apply rules to a football business that do not apply to other businesses.

There is a threat there - and we may well not be able to change the structure to counter it, certainly SISU investors could lose money (assuming sueing the league doesnt work) but we could end up with no club if Mr Collins prevails. Unlikely I know but isnt that the point this isnt the important issue at CCFC - what the fans want is more investment in the team and within reason most fans dont care about the source, we have had plenty of dodgy characters before

What does naming the investors actually achieve in the real day to day life of CCFC ? Will it make anyone more relaxed or confident about our club - no

Say we had one owner - what stops that person borrowing money from dodgy characters (who could by reason of the loan exert pressure on the owner ) or what stops that person making bad decisions in business going bust and calling their loans to CCFC in. We all know that "owner investment" at any club is nearly always a misnomer for owner loans - they might do a fit and proper test at the start doesnt stop things happening in the future or things catching up with them (ask Mr Yeung ? )

Am always sceptical about MP's - this smacks a little of self promotion, strangely timed to coincide with the press coverage of the unrest at our club and his own Party Conference next week. The set up has been in place four years and wasnt hidden (infact got a fair bit of coverage in the press) so why is CCFC suddenly so important to Mr Collins?

Yes I would like to know the major backers of our club - but to be honest I dont lose any sleep over it - how we do on the pitch is far more important to me and does cost me sleep. Actually who invested in the SISU funds is not really high up on the list of problems at CCFC right now ...... the team and providing its finances are !
 
Last edited:

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
Midlands today now
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
OSB forgive me if im being naive ,if ranson was still here and we sold turner for 750,000,and the company SAC he,s involved with funding loans to Cardiff for player purchases,then after Cardiff gain promotion or not turner achieves atransfer in the region of say£3m,would that be right or of benefit toCCFC
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
I disagree. He seems to be doing this for the right reasons, not self-publicity. CCFC are different to a bank 'cos, duh, we are a football club, not a bank. There are many rules that apply to football clubs that don't apply to banks. One is the "Fit and Proper Persons Test"-although granted, I have very little faith in that as it is far too flimsy (Liverpool, Man U, Thaskin, Pompey X 2, Yueng, etc)-lots of dodgy mofo's about there getting rubber stamped!

In short, transparency=more accountability. Fans need that, and sport is very very different to other types of business-something SISU clearly don't grasp, and I say that based on all matters, not just this one.

In terms of expelling the club-that doesn't seem to be the route Collins wants, more the ultimate sanction that is a way off. What he wants is transparency, and his methods are either
1) Get HRMS to reveal identities
2) Get the FL change it's regulations (his preferred option).

He has my backing 100%. What do SISU have to hide? Oh I forgot, shadowy is their watchword.
 
Last edited:

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
What did they say NLHWC?

Pretty much my points 1) and 2). He seems to be concerned at the attitude and lack of accountability to fans and local business who deal with the club.
 

Bennets Afro

Well-Known Member
Doesn't brody own 10%???
if that's true and no one owns more then 10% would it be fair in asuming there could be 10 owners???
£30million between 10 owners is 3 million each

I'd imagine if they had £3million to throw at a football club then they will have a lot more, so taking a hit on £3million wouldn't sound as bad as SISU make out. Even I they got half back each from a £15million buyout or a third from £10 million buyout

Is this a feesable setup do you think???
 

coundonskyblue

New Member
I disagree. He seems to be doing this for the right reasons, not self-publicity. CCFC are different to a bank 'cos, duh, we are a football club, not a bank. There are many rules that apply to football clubs that don't apply to banks. One is the "Fit and Proper Persons Test"-although granted, I have very little faith in that as it is far too flimsy (Liverpool, Man U, Thaskin, Pompey X 2, Yueng, etc)-lots of dodgy mofo's about there getting rubber stamped!

In short, transparency=more accountability. Fans need that, and sport is very very different to other types of business-something SISU clearly don't grasp, and I say that based on all matters, not just this one.

In terms of expelling the club-that doesn't seem to be the route Collins wants, more the ultimate sanction that is a way off. What he wants is transparency, and his methods are either
1) Get HRMS to reveal identities
2) Get the FL change it's regulations (his preferred option).

He has my backing 100%. What do SISU have to hide? Oh I forgot, shadowy is their watchword.

I agree with you here. While were talking about banks, due to anti money laundering laws the government/FSA know exactly who has a bank account with a particular bank. For example, I go into Lloyds and open an account, they ask to see my ID, that information gets passed on to the FSA. The FSA are playing the part of the football league.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Odd that his focus is largely on CCFC,,,,,westminsters a small village,we,ve got 4 mps in this city ,who i'm sure are aware of whats been going on inside and outside the arena ,maybe what goes around comes around ,you know the Bullies being Bullied,or could be the odd skeleton in the cupboard.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Well if you want to go down that route, Robinson did seem to be quite anti-SISU in his views when the Hoffman saga was going on.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
I wasnt on about opening an account...................... If a fund manager buys quoted shares in Barclays as part of the portfolio he manages then Barclays dont know who invested in the fund. However the fund manager would have to comply with money laundering regs. The principle of not knowing who owns the shares isnt new or exceptional was the point

and I did say I was playing devils advocate in what I wrote.

But I dont buy into football business being different because it is football either, that has always been the arguement /excuse for poor investment and even poorer management - look where that has got us in general let alone at CCFC. Football business relies on being able to find a benefactor with deep pockets prepared to risk millions in the remote chance of success. Ask yourself would you invest in a club on that basis - no neither would I - it is an ethos that is unsustainable for most clubs. Good business principles and practice still apply to football just like any other business you care to mention

Would totally agree Nonleague far too easy to pass the League fit and proper test

It isnt within the power of HMRC to go divulging financial and tax details of taxpayers. (can in exceptional cases). Nor should it be. That would establish a principle that could have far reaching implications

The way to get greater transparency is by the League regulation on that I agree. Do I have confidence in the league to do that - no

I can accept things should be more transparent, really dont have a problem with that

two questions
1) why raise this issue specifically about CCFC now
2) Exactly what difference do folk expect it to make specifically to do with CCFC - how would it change or improve our current situation?
 
Last edited:

TalkSkyBlue

New Member
So if as we are now led to believe that there are many investors with less than 10% shares, then does this explain why there is a lack of direction?

I would be interested to know from those of you who have a greater understanding of corporate matters how the decision-making process would work in this type of structure i.e. is all decision-making delegated to the board or do the board have to gain approval from a majority of investors before major strategic decisions can be rubber stamped?

The current economic climate aside (I know it can't be ignored), then if there are many factions amongst the investors, AT has no chance of getting any financial backing for new player's!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top