FAQ 1 - The Beginning (1 Viewer)

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Back in late 2007 our great club was in dire straits. We were all but declared bankrupt and only waited for someone to call the administrators in. The bank was tired of sending payment reminders and even Robinson had decided it was time to sell up and get back whatever he could - which was not a lot as it turned out.

In another location Ranson was hungry to get his own club having already failed to get Villa, Manchester City and Southampton - and so the world had a seller and a buyer. Ranson couldn't buy the club from his own money, so he partnered with somebody who could raise the remaining capital ... SISU who were able to provide funds from investments they managed for their clients. No outsider really knows the details of the negotiations but when the white smoke finally came up the chimney Ranson and the SISU managed funds were our new owners.

There was a condition though - one that created a lot of mistrust between SISU and the fans - the handing over of ALL shares. Shares that were in fact worthless in terms of money, but had a high sentimental value for the fans. So it looked like daylight robbery - hand over the shares or your club will die!

On the other hand, SISU needed at least 90% of the shares to gain absolute control and Robinson only had 71.5%. Had SISU not 'collected' the remaining shares they would have been vulnerable to a hostile takeover attempt ... ahem, remember Hoffman? In addition shares in free floatation have a market value and the setup SISU wanted relied on the shares holding a fixed value until they are sold. Very complicated for everybody but SISU, but more importantly it created a rift between owners and fans that exists even today.

SISU are a bunch of investment managers knowing zip about running a football club but specialized in corporate recovery investments. Ranson had played for real and even knows the offside rules, so he was very trustworthy. SISU being investors negotiated a partnership with Ranson where Ranson deposited his own successful business, Prozone, as his share of the investment while the SISU funds provided the money needed to clear the debts (with a £35m discount) so forming the Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Group which included the ownership of CCFC Limited. Ranson was crowned Chairman and CEO. Other board members were Hoffman (VC), Elliott and Parkin. SISU only had one member at the board - Onye Igwe

“We are debts free! In fact we are one of only three clubs in the country that are debt free!” Said by Ranson. Well, that was not exactly true. It was true originally however that all external debts were cleared. But those debts were replaced by new loans provided by the SISU funds. The beauty of the new loans is that they do not carry any interest. This way the club is relieved of £2-3 millions of cost per year. Very nice. Even better yet, the club is not obligated to make periodic installments to bring down the loans. That’s more millions not being spent on non-football matters. Very, very nice.

But loans are still loans. It is money borrowed from someone who wants it back at some point. There's a reason for this construction and it's quite simple - by being the clubs major creditor SISU can more or less block any move to put the club in administration in the future should Ranson fail to deliver the turn-around he promised.

In the beginning we had Ranson running the show backed financially by loans provided by investors managed by SISU. The board oversaw the operations deciding on any thing major by simple voting. The only thing they couldn't control was bringing in new investments as that must be provided by SISU.

In the beginning nothing could go wrong.


.............................................

This piece is the first of three. Hopefully we will have a series of threads where we can discuss issues to determine what's facts and what's fiction.

Each FAQ will contain an opening post based on facts (as we know them), while any speculation will be put in additional posts - mostly as replys to other peoples comments.

Please post your comments/questions regarding the initial takeover by Ranson/SISU in this thread.

Coming up:
FAQ 2 - Money Talks
FAQ 3 - The End?
Those threads will include issues like accounts, cash flow, losses, stadium purchase, player sales/proceeds, club strategy and Fair Finance Play.

PUSB

Godiva/OldSkyBlue58
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Based on the 'facts' above I would like to point out a few things.

SISU tried to do what investors normally do - provide the money and then sit back and let 'the professionals' run the operation.
They did it knowing that if the professional ... aka Ranson ... failed, he stood to lose more than just his pride.
SISU had 1 rep at the board and with a simple voting system they couldn't block/veto any decision within the business operation.

Ranson (Chairman), Hoffman (Vice Chairman) and Elliott could act as a unit and outvote SISU at any point.
This changed this year when Ken Dulieu and Len Brody replaced Elliott and Parkin. From that point Ranson lost his majority as seen in the decision to let Thomas go out on loan at Liverpool. That vote resulted in a 3-2 decision (Igwe, Brody, Dulieu vs Ranson, Hoffman).

My point is this, many on this board blame SISU for all the strange and bad decisions made the past three years, yet they hope for Hoffman and Elliott to come back in a hostile takeover.
Be carefull what you wish for ....
 

The Reverend Skyblue

Well-Known Member
I've thanked OSB for all his efforts and i've forgotton to thank your good self, so thanks for your hard work and as i said to OSB go and have a sit down, and a whisky.

Thanks The Rev
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
I've thanked OSB for all his efforts and i've forgotton to thank your good self, so thanks for your hard work and as i said to OSB go and have a sit down, and a whisky.

Thanks The Rev

You're welcome. I will go home and have a nice sip of one of my favorites: Glenfarclas 21yr. When my wife objects I will say you told me to.
 

TheRoyalScam

Well-Known Member
SISU had 1 rep at the board and with a simple voting system they couldn't block/veto any decision within the business operation.

Ranson (Chairman), Hoffman (Vice Chairman) and Elliott could act as a unit and outvote SISU at any point.

SISU owned around 85% of the shares. I can't believe that board decisions were taken on a 'one man, one vote' simple voting system. The first signs of a schism between the SISU and Ranson factions came when we sold Danny Fox and Scott Dann - by this time it must have become fairly clear to the board that the Council had no intention of selling any part of the Ricoh to SISU. I understand RR (and Chris Coleman) both resigned over these sales, because SISU weren't sticking to the business plan - however GH persuaded RR to carry on and fight the SISU faction 'from within'.

If it was a 'simple voting system', then why would RR (ex-pro who knows the business), GH and JE (city fans) sanction the sale of Fox and Dann?
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
SISU owned around 85% of the shares. I can't believe that board decisions were taken on a 'one man, one vote' simple voting system. The first signs of a schism between the SISU and Ranson factions came when we sold Danny Fox and Scott Dann - by this time it must have become fairly clear to the board that the Council had no intention of selling any part of the Ricoh to SISU. I understand RR (and Chris Coleman) both resigned over these sales, because SISU weren't sticking to the business plan - however GH persuaded RR to carry on and fight the SISU faction 'from within'.

If it was a 'simple voting system', then why would RR (ex-pro who knows the business), GH and JE (city fans) sanction the sale of Fox and Dann?

The simple voting system is actual much more common than voting based on shares. The logic is that a board is supposed to be populated with professionals who are all important to the development and overseing of the operations - AND and this is also vital, each member of the board is equally responsible in the eyes of the law.

The way for a majority of the shareholders to intervene is to call an extraordinay general assembly to sack the board, but this is extremely rare and very dramatic. If anything can create headlines, that's it. Such a move will also almost every time create disruption right down the company, it can be a very costly excercise.

If you read the FAQ 2 you will notice how the losses continued at an alarming rate troughout 2008 and 2009, and I think (please take note: Think) that new money from the SISU funds were harder to get. At that time the full impact of the financial crisis were haunting almost anyone with money invested, and I guess the sisu clients were taking hits as well.
So, if new money wasn't available and the cashflow continued to stay negative, then the only real option would be to sell players (Dann and Fox).

It may look like a twist of words, but in my eyes it was Ranson who failed to stick to the business plan - not SISU. It was Ranson who operated the shop and the business plan was all about balancing the books. Selling Dann & Fox suggest the books weren't balanced, thus he failed.
You may be thinking about the 'growing young players with potential' plan, but that can not supersede decisions vital to the clubs survival.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
SISU owned around 85% of the shares. I can't believe that board decisions were taken on a 'one man, one vote' simple voting system. The first signs of a schism between the SISU and Ranson factions came when we sold Danny Fox and Scott Dann - by this time it must have become fairly clear to the board that the Council had no intention of selling any part of the Ricoh to SISU. I understand RR (and Chris Coleman) both resigned over these sales, because SISU weren't sticking to the business plan - however GH persuaded RR to carry on and fight the SISU faction 'from within'.

If it was a 'simple voting system', then why would RR (ex-pro who knows the business), GH and JE (city fans) sanction the sale of Fox and Dann?

Who fucking stopped Coleman resigning?

Twat whoever he was.

RR certainly knows the business of milking football clubs for his own gain.
 

@richh87

Member
Who fucking stopped Coleman resigning?

Twat whoever he was.

RR certainly knows the business of milking football clubs for his own gain.

Let's keep these very useful threads as fact; Ranson has never 'milked' a football club. In fact he lost prozone.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Let's keep these very useful threads as fact; Ranson has never 'milked' a football club. In fact he lost prozone.

Read the facts on the FAQ 2.

Lost Pro-zone?

Looks like he probably got paid twice for it.

He also managed to milk Leeds out rather a lot of cash as well.
 

crowsnest

Well-Known Member
Back in late 2007 our great club was in dire straits. We were all but declared bankrupt and only waited for someone to call the administrators in.

The company at this time had mortgages on land around highfield road that was still owned at the time, ryton, the option on the higgs trust shares, money from player transfers, other assets of the business (basiscally everything).

These mortgages where taken out against loans from Robinson, Midland Bank and the Co-op Bank.

Public records do not show how much the loans were for.

All of these mortgages were paid off after the takeover. This would be probably be part of the losses in the first set of accounts after the takeover.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
The company at this time had mortgages on land around highfield road that was still owned at the time, ryton, the option on the higgs trust shares, money from player transfers, other assets of the business (basiscally everything).

These mortgages where taken out against loans from Robinson, Midland Bank and the Co-op Bank.

Public records do not show how much the loans were for.

All of these mortgages were paid off after the takeover. This would be probably be part of the losses in the first set of accounts after the takeover.

Hmmm, don't think so. Paying back loans or mortgages does not effect the losses, only the balance.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
You wouldnt pay more than was owed (that would equate to a loss on a loan)and only charge in Profit & Loss account would be interest. If less was than outstanding was paid to settle then this would be written off in the Profit & Loss account (and seperately disclosed) but it would decrease any losses - effectively the club makes a profit on the settlement of debt because it repays less than was owed. Nothing in the accounts published to say this happened
 

crowsnest

Well-Known Member
My mistake.

So, can you tell if these loans to Robinson, Midland Bank and the co-op were paid off or basically cancelled at the time of the takeover.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
All i can tell you is that £35m of debt was written off on takeover and that april 2008 there are a number of satisfaction of mortgage/charge forms filed at company house.

The accounts do not mention any security given to the three you mention from 2008 accounts onwards. The accounts do mention a total of £450K owing to GR and MM transferred to SBS&L from CCFC H but it doesnt appear these are secured debts and cant tell if still owed or repaid
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Based on the 'facts' above I would like to point out a few things.

SISU tried to do what investors normally do - provide the money and then sit back and let 'the professionals' run the operation.
They did it knowing that if the professional ... aka Ranson ... failed, he stood to lose more than just his pride.
SISU had 1 rep at the board and with a simple voting system they couldn't block/veto any decision within the business operation.

Ranson (Chairman), Hoffman (Vice Chairman) and Elliott could act as a unit and outvote SISU at any point.
This changed this year when Ken Dulieu and Len Brody replaced Elliott and Parkin. From that point Ranson lost his majority as seen in the decision to let Thomas go out on loan at Liverpool. That vote resulted in a 3-2 decision (Igwe, Brody, Dulieu vs Ranson, Hoffman).

My point is this, many on this board blame SISU for all the strange and bad decisions made the past three years, yet they hope for Hoffman and Elliott to come back in a hostile takeover.
Be carefull what you wish for ....

However isn't mainly the decisions that have occurred since that change in the board that most fans have been concerned about?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
However isn't mainly the decisions that have occurred since that change in the board that most fans have been concerned about?

No. I was "concerned" that Ranson's clueless incompetence led to the appointment of one dud manager after another. Also the sanctioning of ridiculous signings like Eastwood who McCarthy had all but said was a basket case. Also his inability to get players like Westwood either signed on new deals or sold far earlier in the contract.

As for Joe Elliot what fit and proper test would this buffoon ever pass?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top