Can I have an Update please (1 Viewer)

[Godiva]

Ranson claimed the owners overuled him, and refused to allow him to budget long term, just 1-3 months in advance. I simply don't believe the letter, and I do think having a fly-by-night tanned chairman is a problem, so we'll have to beg to differ.

Fair enough - you have made u your mind and nothing said or done to put a different perspective up will make you think otherwise.

I just want to add - the original budget was made by sisu and Ranson. If he failed to convince sisu to put in more (to become sugar daddys) that can only mean that Ranson failed to live within his own budget.
Sure the world is changeing and so did probably some of the premisses in the original budget, but Ranson knew it was a hedge fund he was married to and therefore he must have known the importance of making additional cuts to even out the failing gates.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Godiva I understand what you are saying but as you know I never have bought into it was all RR's fault in much the same way as I dont buy into it being all SISU's fault. I have a number of issues with what you say

firstly SISU are not long term owners of anything - it simply is not their business objective. They come in turn it around then sell it on. Might not be short term but they are not here for long. They are bringing others in for two purposes. To share the funding load whilst they turn it around and secondly because it provides an opportunity for an easier sale to a party already connected.

SISU have a duty to their investors to ensure proper and adequate management from day 1 - they simply cannot wash their hands of the past blaming others without taking equal responsibility. Any budgets set would require their deep involvement and approval. Any major decisions (ie purchases or sales of players) would require their approval (not at the initial stage but at the closing stage). That is the mandate their investors have given them to protect their investment. Anything other is mismanagement and breaches their duty of care to the fund investors. They either hold their hands up properly or they are guilty of breach of trust

SISU had not worked with RR before so had no idea of his abilities to deliver the budget- that should have put these sophisticated financial people on guard but it didnt if we take things as you say. That is very worrying because it says that SISU do not have proper control and a detailed plan for investment of their clients money.

RR was an officer of the club responsible to the Board and ultimately the owners. He was also a Board member. That Board had a duty to monitor his actions and ensure the agreed strategy adhered to. On that Board was a representative of the owners (Onye) who is therefore closely involved in Board decisions and approval of budgets etc. There is a good reason for his appointment - to monitor the Board for SISU (his primary employers) and to report back on a regular basis. That regular basis being the monthly Board meetings at which financial management would be discussed and decided. This is not a usual situation of stand off investors - it is not how football investors or football investor management agents work. To say that the Board had ultimate power of decision or that SISU simply let them get on with it simply is not so. For them to suggest they let the board get on with it indicates how naiive they think we fans are

The onye statement confirms SISU's agreed public opinion released for PR purposes that happens to agree to your opinion in some ways. Bottom line however is that SISU see CCFC as a reasonably short term investment to sell on they are not interested in being long term owners because they could not make a decent return for their investors in doing so.

Personally I dont disagree with the Board controlling and cutting costs - it is what any business in these circumstances would do. There is no great magic to it and it should have been done from Day 1 not 4 years later!

I think that the transfer window was pretty much disappointing. We needed greater strength in depth, two strikers and a midfielder - we gained one and lost a player at quite possibly will turn out to be a rock bottom price. AT isnt going to rock the boat and say he isnt happy because with the squad stretched and lacking confidence that would be detrimental to the club about which he clearly cares deeply. He has not once contradicted the Board or SISU - I dont ecpect him to start anytime soon

Cutting football budgets because of the contract system takes time it cannot be done quickly. Contracts would have to be paid up but not get any use from them - we didnt have the money largely because of the downturn in crowds. Crowds can drop quickly but the cost of wages does not. There was and still is a requirement to fund the gap or overlap. Neither RR nor SISU can react quickly enough negate that shortfall happening..... is easy for SISU to blame RR for the wrongs with him now departed though (not unusual in any business reorganisation)

The statement would not have been issued without the visits to their offices, the hostile reception at the last match or the campaign on forums such as this. They didnt chose the timing. The SISU mistakes would still have been the same. It was a PR exercise deflecting blame to others, they are entitled to their opinion but be clear they are not doing this for the benefit of the fans - only to best protect their clients investment and their own income stream. There was a lot of words but little depth, some of it i would argue to be misleading, much sought to blame others (whilst making a small admission themselves), was contradictory in parts or to other statements from the board and in some degree arrogant.

SISU are not all bad, proper fiscal control is essential, living within our means non negotiable but I am not taken in by a statement short in facts, not of their timing and more about their investment than fans engagement.

Can agree with some of your analysis but not all

 

[Robccfc87]

The prosecution rests your honour!!!

 

[Godiva]

One thing you need to calculate into your sisu/ranson analysis is the part where ranson holds 20% of the shares. sisu - as most investors - from day one demanded ranson to place his hand on the hot stove. It's a common - though pretty twisted - investor logic, if the man who wants the capital is risking his own financial future should he fail, then the investors trust him.
That's why they let Ranson run the show, although within a committed budget.

I am not familiar with the sisu/ranson investor agreement and I don't really know how much Ranson was allowed to sign for, but I know of similar arrangements (not football related) where the chairman/ceo had almost free movements and could sign any document as long as he got one board member to co-sign. If that is close to the Ranson/sisu agreement then Ranson and Elliot/Hoffman could run the club, mortgaging the training facilities and what have you. The only thing sisu can actually control is new funding through the shareholders.

We don't agree about sisu - that's how it is, and we both judge them from our professionel platform. Neither of us is 100% right or wrong, and for the clubs sake I would hope somebody else came in with an offer sisu can't refuse. As that is not going to happen, I think we have no choice but to accept they are here and that they are turning around the way the club is run financially. If nothing else, that can only be good for the future.

 

[Houchens Head]

The rebels are taking over Libya, Gadafis gone missing, the weather here has been shite and Big bleedin' Brother is back. Anything else you needed to know? :thinking about:

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Fair enough - you have made u your mind and nothing said or done to put a different perspective up will make you think otherwise.

OK, but straight back at 'ya!

As for SISU-well those that say "they're venture capitalists, I never wanted them here" are probably correct. There is this notion that they are somehow "saviours" who picked us up off the scrapheap as some kind of mercy gesture-as opposed to being hard-nosed exploitationist money men who sniffed a quick buck from a bit of distressed bet.

What these companies do is to reduce every running cost they can to make businesses more attractive to potential buyers. Which is fine if you're talking getting rid of Kyles and Borrowdales, less so when it comes to the likes of Turner.

Of course, they're new to our game and maybe don't realise/care that such cuts will have a direct effect on the performance of the "business" when it comes to football. I really don't see how having to sell players to fund the club is a way of "turning around the way the club is run financially". As custodians of the club (it's NOT theirs) they've broken the promise they made when they made shareholders give away their shares to them.

 

[Paxman II]

OSB welcome back. I sense you were somewhere on another planet without internet connectivity then during such a dramatic period for the Sky Blues?

I agree with a lot of your assessments but you do assume a little here.

Why did SISU buy the club initially? What was there 'short term' goal as you put it? Anyone taking on the club on that almost fateful day in 2006 knew this was not for a short term but at the least the medium term and even longer. It's now 2011 so can't agree with your logic there. Are you suggesting they thought they would turn it all around in a couple of years?

Ranson's involvement was a financial one too and there probably lies the answer. Godiva has hinted at such and I suspect the whole original plan failed due to the 'control and trust' placed in Ranson's ability at the time and he ultimately failed. When Ranson sacked Dowie so late in the season and appointed Cloeman I was convinced he had not a clue what he was doing. But for the width of a post we would have gone down that season!

Turner has been a crock for almost a year and has not played a competitive game for us. He was a revelation when Bothroyd placed him and Cameron in the defence initially but that was some time ago. His value simply can not be worth much more than we got. We have a plethora of centre backs and whether Turner would have found the form he had is questionable. There will no doubt be a sell on clause attached and the fee rises on appearances. I think that was good business.
Cody was AT's #1 target and could prove a snip at 400k. Yes we need a midfielder or maybe two and I sincerely hope the loan window is fruitful. I think it has been a fairly good period for the Sky Blues and SISU (though I dislike their attitude) are making the right choices at the moment that keeps our club taking the right steps forward even if they are small ones.

Hoffman and his merry men had no substance and were extremely amateur with their 'bid' and only time will tell if they can return and prove how serious they can be. Unless Hoffman secures more than he had indicated in his first 'offer' then I think realistically he would not succeed in taking the club forward on a sound financial footing either. He would simply be putting the club into more debt. Tough decisions must be made and perhaps in the 'medium term' SISU are the ones without the 'sentimentality' that can do that?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Hi Paxman & thanks..... still same planet just valued being with the family more than being online .

wasnt saying they were here short term more that they are not long term investors. I do think that RR & SISU saw an opportunity when they took that by now should have rewarded them and that SISU have had to adapt to its failure.

Not saying RR shouldnt share the blame but I do think the recent statement tried to distance SISU from past responsibilities and I get irritated by people or organisations not fronting up to their responsibilities. They failed to understand the business and to control it properly....... this wasnt a bank making loans this was a targetted specialised group of funds with restricted members that invested funds on the basis it would be properly managed ..... to say since 2007 we got it wrong because we let someone else play with millions of £'s but we will get it right now is not great investment management is it? . Yes RR was a stakeholder of less than 15% which is a minority stake and carries no great control of the business but did mean he risked his money..... doesnt excuse the apparent lack of adequate monitoring of the finances though does it ?

As Godiva says the reality is probably somewhere in the middle and neither he nor I are 100% right - more than happy to accept that. Differences of opinion in my mind is healthy because it brings out all the issues

Turner - i think he will go on to bigger and better things, just feel had we got him playing that we may have got more for him come say January (he was under a 3 year contract signed last year afterall so no rush to sell). Will be interesting to see what happens in say 2 years time if he is sold on by Cardiff. As for add on's in the contract I dont think you can be certain - there may have been a trade off against getting the money all now rather than instalments (dont forget Cardiff finances are not great either) - but hope you are right. Reality is he didnt play enough games since 2005 for us (72) and 9 good games at the start of last season isnt really a good return for a player with in my mind great potential. So a decent deal right now - yes probably just not sure some will see it that way later

Guess you have to take AT at his word that McDonald was first choice but why did it take so long when Norwich were looking to balance their squad and off load players. Want to see him play 10 games before I make my own mind up about him. A movement in right direction but will it be enough or will he step up to this level - i hope he does we need him to. Loan players coming in - will wait see right now we dont have a good track record of following through on such things.

I actually agree with what SISU are doing with the costs side of the business - but I would have agreed in 2007 also- like i said SISU are not all bad when you look at it dispassionately. I dont think that SISU will be here long term but they will for next 2 years +. It will take that long for them to really turn the club around to have something saleable and maximise their "investment" for their clients - but that assumes we stay in this division.

Always expressed doubts about Hoffman - there was simply not enough detail about his proposed deal and I could never see how it changed anything, debt was replaced by more debt. I do not see how he can come back from what is a humiliating position with a credible offer to SISU. But in terms of offers it is clear that SISU have no credible alternatives - there are no other bidders (only limited interest) so yes we are stuck with them but equally they are stuck with us.

So just different viewpoints and I find that interesting

 

[oldskyblue58]

Sorry if I missed anyone before so just wanted to say thanks to all for the updates and welcome backs :wave:

 

[Paxman II]

Hey OSB that's a great summary. Could not put it better.

Guess we will be watching the loan window closely. If we fail to bring anyone in the jokers will be back to remind us that SISU broke their word again?!
The fact is will any one we are interested in be available at a deal we can afford and if not we may well end up with no loan in. I hope if there is that player they will up their game to bring him in....it could be key to remaining in this division.