Are the club lying?.....Again? (1 Viewer)

[Nick]

Are the club making it up about meeting the Hoff? They have a good history about making things up in the press to get the fans on side, much like their meeting with the council and players contracts that the players never actually saw.

It will be good to see if the Hoff goes to the press saying there is no meeting arranged.

 

---

[ajsccfc]

Wouldn't exactly help his chances of engaging in active dialogue with them if he did run to the press again.

 

[Nick]

I guess you are right, but if they are saying "We have a meeting planned" and there is no meeting planned. Surely there is no harm in him saying "There is no meeting booked yet".

 

[ajsccfc]

If he were to say that, we can predict the general reaction and that wouldn't really do anyone much good. If there is no meeting scheduled, the best thing he can surely do is say nothing in the hope a meeting is put together. If he's portrayed in the media as the honest protagonist to SISU's stingy antagonist I don't think it'd help the situation.

 

[Bennets Afro]

Surely the Hoffman can go direct to SISU and not to the board. SISU only have one employee on the board in onye, the rest are small minority shareholders of the club.
Surely SISU would deal Hoffman as the board it seems have predjucies towards Hoffman

 

[Godiva]

Surely the Hoffman can go direct to SISU and not to the board. SISU only have one employee on the board in onye, the rest are small minority shareholders of the club.
Surely SISU would deal Hoffman as the board it seems have predjucies towards Hoffman

No, that is not the professionel way to do it - and I am sure we all want our future owners to be professionel?

Any offer must be made to the board. Any subsequent negotiation must be with the board. If the board feel the offer is in the best interest of the club, they will take it to the shareholders.

 

[fanta80]

Are the club making it up about meeting the Hoff? They have a good history about making things up in the press to get the fans on side, much like their meeting with the council and players contracts that the players never actually saw.

It will be good to see if the Hoff goes to the press saying there is no meeting arranged.

And if it isnt a lie and its happening what then? Hoffman goes to the press about everything which is detrimental to his supposed bid.

 

[oldskyblue58]

ok just to be awkward - which Board ? There are three of them all different in constitution.

or put another way which of the three companies are being bought/sold ?

 

[Godiva]

ok just to be awkward - which Board ? There are three of them all different in constitution.

or put another way which of the three companies are being bought/sold ?

Good point!
But I guess it would actually be the bord of the football club as this is the primary target for a takeover. The other comapnies are merely a distraction in this case.

 

[Bennets Afro]

I just don't think the board wanna sell to Hoffman and co. There is a thread on gmk about the bank now funding us. Seems like they are trying everything to keep the club going by any means other than sell to them

http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/bank_funding_club__dulieu_689503/index.shtml?

 

[oldskyblue58]

actually i would think that it should be SBS&L as thats the parent co plus is where SISU's loans are. but who knows with this lot lol

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I am confused, I realise the board have a record of lying but I don't understand why they would say they have a meeting planned when they don't.
SISU keep stating the club is not for sale but by saying meetings are arranged that are not this to me sends out the message that the club is for sale and they are interested in negotiating with Hoffman and potential investors. I don't really understand this side of football but I don't see what the board could gain out of this.

 

[Chipfat]

Simple spin, to keep the fans calm and making out its hoff that is stalling and doesnt have the back up to follow his conviction. Its All about playing hard ball, but i have a feeling Sisu will end up either walking away out of pocket or Admin with hatred from all at the club.

Either way its not a good outcome for us or for Sisu, i just hope things are done sooner rather than later when the club is at a point of no return...

 

[Nick]

And if it isnt a lie and its happening what then? Hoffman goes to the press about everything which is detrimental to his supposed bid.

Then if it is happening then Hoffman says nothing or comes out and says "Yes, it is on this day". I am not expecting him to lie about it, rather out the board if they are lying which I have a feeling they are

 

[Nick]

I am confused, I realise the board have a record of lying but I don't understand why they would say they have a meeting planned when they don't.
SISU keep stating the club is not for sale but by saying meetings are arranged that are not this to me sends out the message that the club is for sale and they are interested in negotiating with Hoffman and potential investors. I don't really understand this side of football but I don't see what the board could gain out of this.

The same reason they would lie about having a meeting with the council. It sounds good to the fans....

 

[ashbyjan]

Why does eveyone still keep going on about admin? It is not going to happen - the majority of the debt (that we don't have obviously) is to SISU managed funds, around £24 million, I am sure there is some debt to suppliers, HMRC etc but if we were to go into admin the SISU would lose probably all their investment/loan/debt as there will be no assets left to liquidate to pay off debts. Their only way out is to sell and claw back some of their investment/loan/debt and minimise their losses. This si why Hoff can play hardball as he knows they are up poo creek without a paddle and its just a case of finding the exact amount at which they are willing to cut their losses. £1 obvioulsy wasn't it, so I expect him to sweeten the deal to £1 and a half empty packet of polo's. I really don't think this is going to happen quickly, which will be bad for the club but these are bankers who don't give a damn about us the fans, even if Hoff does I doubt whether his backers do.

 

[Godiva]

I am confused, I realise the board have a record of lying but I don't understand why they would say they have a meeting planned when they don't.
SISU keep stating the club is not for sale but by saying meetings are arranged that are not this to me sends out the message that the club is for sale and they are interested in negotiating with Hoffman and potential investors. I don't really understand this side of football but I don't see what the board could gain out of this.

And it is all very confusing.
What we should do first of all is to understand the different parties involved. For instance the Bord and SISU are not the same.
SISU are the owners - the shareholders. They have appointed a board to oversee their interest. The board have appointed a chaiman who is ultimately the person responsible that everything is done in 'an orderly fashion'.
The board appoints a CEO and a CFO to run the business according to a strategy and budget and as this is a football club they also appoints a manager to run the team. When Ranson was in office, he was chairman and acting CEO at the same time, which is never a good idea.

So Now we have SISU who rarely speaks out publicly. We have a chairman who is not SISU. We have a board with a number of members of which 1 (or is it 2?) is SISU representative. The chaiman and his board may be elected by SISU, but legally they have to do what is best for the company - not the owners. They cannot break the law if that would benefit the owners but break the company.

It is 'normal practice' that board decisions can be decided by majority votes where each member hold 1 vote DISREGARDING the number of shares the member represent. This practise is to make sure a majority shareholder cannot run the business as his own.
In case of a dispute between the majority of the board and the majority of the shareholders the only power the shareholders have is to effectively stop funding losses. If the company is not in need of more money the shareholders are in effect whithout power. If the company is in need of more money - as we clearly were last winter, then stopping the funding is a very effective power which we witnessed first hand a few months ago leading to Hoffmans and Ransons exit.

So everybody has a different role and his own agenda.

Some on this board says that SISU have a record of lying referring to the first public meeting with the new board where either Dulieu or Brody said a meeting with the council was arranged where infact it was only intended.
Well, neither Dulieu or Brody are SISU.

I have noted that the owners (SISU) have said - either directly or through members of the board:
The club is not for sale (meaning they are not actively looking for a way OUT).
The club is looking for new investors (as we will need to buy the stadium).
They will keep covering the cash deficit for a foreseeable future (throughout the season).
Cost must come down to not exceed the income.

No, I do not love SISU and I have no relatives amongst them. At best I try to stay neutral.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

That's a very informative post, Godiva, however as I understand it board members didn't (and probably still don't) have 'equal' votes on board decisions. Ray Ranson offered his resignation when the board voted in favour of selling Scott Dann and Danny Fox - Hoffman persuaded him to stay. At the time I believe they held about 16% of the shares, and were constantly out-voted on strategic and financial decisions. The Conor Thomas loan/sale to Liverpool was the last straw for Hoffman, and Ranson soon followed. You are correct to say that Dulieu, Brody, Clouting and Clarke aren't technically SISU, however we do know that Brody is a shareholder, and they were all put in place by SISU.

Something's got to give. It's a little bit like a game of poker, where SISU are bluffing with a bad hand because they're losing money and the council will never sell the Ricoh to them, while the Hoffman consortium knows this because they've seen SISU's hand - we're just waiting and hoping that they'll play their aces sooner rather than later.

:blue::blue::blue::blue:

 

[Godiva]

... as I understand it board members didn't (and probably still don't) have 'equal' votes on board decisions. Ray Ranson offered his resignation when the board voted in favour of selling Scott Dann and Danny Fox - Hoffman persuaded him to stay. At the time I believe they held about 16% of the shares, and were constantly out-voted on strategic and financial decisions.

I think that Ranson and Hoffman had one vote each and was outvoted by the remainding of the board. The number of shares they represented did not come into account.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

I think that Ranson and Hoffman had one vote each and was outvoted by the remainding of the board. The number of shares they represented did not come into account.

So in effect nothing's changed. If Leeds bid £750,000 for Sammy Clingan there's only Clarke on the board who'll vote to keep him. It all looked so rosy in the early days - we had a chairman who was an ex-pro footballer who understood the game and the business of football. Now we seem to have a bunch of spin-merchants/accountants who don't understand the game.

 

[Godiva]

So in effect nothing's changed. If Leeds bid £750,000 for Sammy Clingan there's only Clarke on the board who'll vote to keep him. It all looked so rosy in the early days - we had a chairman who was an ex-pro footballer who understood the game and the business of football. Now we seem to have a bunch of spin-merchants/accountants who don't understand the game.

In the early days when all was rosy and the club was run by ex-pro footballers ... well what really happened?
The budget was not respected. Ineffectual managers were hired. Failure to sell players when they would command a fee.
If the plans had been followed and the owners not requested to keep injecting more and more money, then players would not have been sold unless the manager wanted it - would they?

 

[TheRoyalScam]

In the early days when all was rosy and the club was run by ex-pro footballers ... well what really happened?
The budget was not respected. Ineffectual managers were hired. Failure to sell players when they would command a fee.
If the plans had been followed and the owners not requested to keep injecting more and more money, then players would not have been sold unless the manager wanted it - would they?

Exactly - if they had stuck to their business plan then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. The writing was on the wall as soon as we sold Dann and Fox. We could have been promoted with this team:

Westwood
Cranie Dann Turner Fox
Clingan
Henderson Cork
McSheffrey
Carroll Jutkiewicz​

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

And it is all very confusing.
What we should do first of all is to understand the different parties involved. For instance the Bord and SISU are not the same.
SISU are the owners - the shareholders. They have appointed a board to oversee their interest. The board have appointed a chaiman who is ultimately the person responsible that everything is done in 'an orderly fashion'.
The board appoints a CEO and a CFO to run the business according to a strategy and budget and as this is a football club they also appoints a manager to run the team. When Ranson was in office, he was chairman and acting CEO at the same time, which is never a good idea.

So Now we have SISU who rarely speaks out publicly. We have a chairman who is not SISU. We have a board with a number of members of which 1 (or is it 2?) is SISU representative. The chaiman and his board may be elected by SISU, but legally they have to do what is best for the company - not the owners. They cannot break the law if that would benefit the owners but break the company.

It is 'normal practice' that board decisions can be decided by majority votes where each member hold 1 vote DISREGARDING the number of shares the member represent. This practise is to make sure a majority shareholder cannot run the business as his own.
In case of a dispute between the majority of the board and the majority of the shareholders the only power the shareholders have is to effectively stop funding losses. If the company is not in need of more money the shareholders are in effect whithout power. If the company is in need of more money - as we clearly were last winter, then stopping the funding is a very effective power which we witnessed first hand a few months ago leading to Hoffmans and Ransons exit.

So everybody has a different role and his own agenda.

Some on this board says that SISU have a record of lying referring to the first public meeting with the new board where either Dulieu or Brody said a meeting with the council was arranged where infact it was only intended.
Well, neither Dulieu or Brody are SISU.

I have noted that the owners (SISU) have said - either directly or through members of the board:
The club is not for sale (meaning they are not actively looking for a way OUT).
The club is looking for new investors (as we will need to buy the stadium).
They will keep covering the cash deficit for a foreseeable future (throughout the season).
Cost must come down to not exceed the income.

No, I do not love SISU and I have no relatives amongst them. At best I try to stay neutral.

All the same, the board are entirely SISU placemen. They are puppets and supposed PR experts (ie lies and bullshit). To all intents and purposes they are the same. I haven't heard a word of sense from Dulieu yet, and I think 99.9% of what he says is entirely fictional, including his crappy Powerpoint presentation to SISU. And I haven't even started on that twonk Brody.

 

[Godiva]

All the same, the board are entirely SISU placemen. They are puppets and supposed PR experts (ie lies and bullshit). To all intents and purposes they are the same. I haven't heard a word of sense from Dulieu yet, and I think 99.9% of what he says is entirely fictional, including his crappy Powerpoint presentation to SISU. And I haven't even started on that twonk Brody.

So I take it you're not neutral then

 

[sky blue john]

Why does eveyone still keep going on about admin? It is not going to happen - the majority of the debt (that we don't have obviously) is to SISU managed funds, around £24 million, I am sure there is some debt to suppliers, HMRC etc but if we were to go into admin the SISU would lose probably all their investment/loan/debt as there will be no assets left to liquidate to pay off debts. Their only way out is to sell and claw back some of their investment/loan/debt and minimise their losses. This si why Hoff can play hardball as he knows they are up poo creek without a paddle and its just a case of finding the exact amount at which they are willing to cut their losses. £1 obvioulsy wasn't it, so I expect him to sweeten the deal to £1 and a half empty packet of polo's. I really don't think this is going to happen quickly, which will be bad for the club but these are bankers who don't give a damn about us the fans, even if Hoff does I doubt whether his backers do.

AJ the Hoff knows how exactly Sisu work because he's been on the inside. All he has done is offer the same deal that Sisu offered when they took over so it would be a pound now and a further payment on promotion.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

So I take it you're not neutral then

Why, what gave you that impression? Apart from my SISU OUT banner at the Nuneaton game maybe

 

[Godiva]

AJ the Hoff knows how exactly Sisu work because he's been on the inside. All he has done is offer the same deal that Sisu offered when they took over so it would be a pound now and a further payment on promotion.

But the circumstances are not the same, are they?
When SISU took over the banks creditors had refused to extend their credit, the banks called in the loans and what have you.
This is hardly the case today - especially as SISU have said they will continue to fund the cash deficit.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Exactly - if they had stuck to their business plan then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. The writing was on the wall as soon as we sold Dann and Fox. We could have been promoted with this team:

Westwood
Cranie Dann Turner Fox
Clingan
Henderson Cork
McSheffrey
Carroll Jutkiewicz​

Depressing looking at that team, then the one below in your signature.

 

[TommyAtkins]

"Exactly - if they had stuck to their business plan then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. The writing was on the wall as soon as we sold Dann and Fox. We could have been promoted..."

There was no guarantee that we would have been promoted. More likely, we would have remained stuck in the Championship but in a far worse financial state. Don't forget that Dann and Fox wanted to leave.

It isnt SISU's fault either that King, Westwood and Gunnarsson rejected contracts

 

[Nick]

It isnt SISU's fault either that King, Westwood and Gunnarsson rejected contracts

It is if they offered them crap ones or didn't offer them at all. Mainly aimed at King and Gunnar, can't blame Westy for taking the step up!

 

[Sutty]

I don't buy the idea that we'd have a team with Carroll, Henderson, Dann, Fox, Westwood, and such like if SISU had 'stuck to their plan'. We're in dire straits financially without the sort of wages those players would command.

 

[TommyAtkins]

It is if they offered them crap ones or didn't offer them at all. Mainly aimed at King and Gunnar, can't blame Westy for taking the step up!

Not SISU's fault at all if we don't have the money to offer them better contracts.

Maybe if more fans bought season tickets, there would be more money to offer better deals?

 

[singers_pore]

Exactly - if they had stuck to their business plan then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. The writing was on the wall as soon as we sold Dann and Fox. We could have been promoted with this team:

Westwood
Cranie Dann Turner Fox
Clingan
Henderson Cork
McSheffrey
Carroll Jutkiewicz​

Personally I think we would be better with Best up front rather than Juke box (who doesn't score enough). But i agree with the sentiments of the post.