Mumford and Daughter
New Member
IMO sisu are a cancer in our club and if people get taken in by them then it's a worrying state of fans mindset IMO.
What good have they done? And why do fans think this will change now?
Fisher in Telegraph Today (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ccfc1979
- Start date
IMO sisu are a cancer in our club and if people get taken in by them then it's a worrying state of fans mindset IMO.
What good have they done? And why do fans think this will change now?
Otis
Well-Known Member
Don't mention cancer and Sisu, you'll have Torchy throwing himself off a cliff!
Mumford and Daughter
New Member
Hopefully take fisher with him then and old Joy
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just as an aside SISU have saved up to 6 million on the original takeover. According to the terms had we got promotion next season to the premiership thats how much some of the old creditors would have got ........... guess it isnt all bad news for SISU we guaranteed that cant happen ! :facepalm:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
He is following joy's line. When you say puppet he is joys puppet. Her tactics are ruthless calculated business.
However I genuinely think she has underestimated Hoffman and the Chinese.
I also think she has underestimated the council and the support some coventry fans will actually give the council.
What we don't know is how much money do the people investing in sisu actually have.
Sisu are trying to bully the council into lowering rent. Sell part of the stadium as cheaply as possible. Allow sisu to have access to the stadium revenues.
Yet it is not actually sisu we are doing this for.
If we discovered that their investors were actually billionaires who were choosing not to.put anymore money in
Would that change the theme of the negiotiations.
Currently the theme is do this or your club will dissaper. The pot is empty
How does anyone know if the pot us empty if you don't know who you are dealing with.
Also if we discover the secret investors are in fact up shit creak and will have to sell eventually no matter what helens.
We then know all this by sisu is just to increase the value and the council could stop wasting their time
Is there anyway we can find out who puts their money into sisu
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
No, because FL rules give anonymity to those with less than a 10% holding, and none of the investors have more than that.
kg82
Well-Known Member
But surely that's a difference of opinion, not a credible reason to question someones support?
Thanks for clearing the depreciation factor for me. I am not an expert into football accounts (as I have showed on many occasions) but I thought Bell's and Bakers new 4 year deals would need to be depreciated. Whatever - in my mind the non-cashflow items were around a mil per year, which in combination with some new/increased revenues and a rent reduction and all the cost savings over the last year could mean we're getting close to cash-flow neutral/positive position.
I leave the blame game to others - there are many much better qualified players of that game on this board. But I do think they are moving us towards break-even. Even with relegation in mind and helped by the FFP.
You are right about sisu being a hedge fund and having a no 1 objective to make a profit ... didn't we put that into one of the FAQ's? But in that respect they are no different than any other investors aside from the sugardaddys (who are now being abandoned from the game through the FFP). I am sure we put that into one of the FAQ's as well.
Reaching a positive financial situation will require the club to own part of the stadium and receive part of the income from each and every event - and in addition a rent reduction. This is necessary no matter who owns us. Sisu are here to negotiate the deal and make it happen. Whatever they did in the past and however anyone plays the blame-game - this deal seem essential to the survival of the club, and that's why I support it.
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
baker and bell were not an outlay (assuming no bonus was paid to get them to sign their deals) so there is nothing to be depreciated - only a future contractual commitment in terms of the salary
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
No Bell & co didnt cost anything to renew so there is nothing to amortise. Their original costs were written off over the life of the original contracts
Mumford and Daughter
New Member
IMO fans who support sisu are not supporting ccfc each to there own. My mates who follow Cov all agree that fans need to be united not on the sisu side
Otis
Well-Known Member
That's all well and good but when you hear stuff come out like 'Coventry City Interim CEO Tim Fisher has said relegation has reduced the club's revenues by half' then you can't but ask why the fook didn't they try and do something about us trying to stay in the Championship?
:thinking about::thinking about:
They have created this mess and now want ACL, the Council, Higgs and the fans to help them out.
Just a couple of more players brought in last season could have made all the difference and if they had one iota of a brain they would have looked and said 'buying 2 players will cost x amount, but being relegated will cost us at least 8-10 times that amount!!
Daft fookers.
kg82
Well-Known Member
Oh, well then that's sorted! Free speech dies here!!
Joy Victoria Seppala
Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Director, Sisu Capital Limited
AgeTotal Calculated CompensationThis person is connected to 3 Board Members in 3 different organizations across 1 different industries.
See Board Relationships47--
Background
Ms. Joy Victoria Seppala is a Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Director at Sisu Capital Ltd. She also serves as a Manager at Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC. From 1995 to 1998, Ms. Seppala served as Worldwide Head of the Special Situations Investment Group at Paribas Corporation in London. Prior to joining Paribas Corporation in 1992 as a Vice President, she worked for a number of years in the mergers and acquisitions departments of Kidder Peabody & Co. Incorporated, ... Drexel Burnham Lambert Incorporated, and Mitsubishi Trust & Banking Corporation.
Read Full Background
Corporate Headquarters
11-12 Hanover Street
London, -- W1S 1YQ
United Kingdom
Phone: 44 20 7290 5450
Fax: 44 20 7493 0471 Board Members Memberships
Manager
Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC
Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
Sisu Capital Limited
Panel Memner and Member of Code Committee
The Takeover Panel (U.K.)
Education
There is no Education data available. Other Affiliations
Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC
The Takeover Panel (U.K.)
The Huntsman connection is the significant one a company she works for ,annual revenues £11Billion,first quarter profits this yr circa $400m.apparently the wife of this extremely wealthy industrialist has been propping us up for most of this season ,but the word is not a penny more thus the arvo charge over our assets.
Calling in a favour as no other hope of investment ,is this what we relied on last season?
Obviously not that much of a special relationship,But is this where money could be found for Stadium investment .
Annual Compensation
There is no Annual Compensation data available. Stocks Options
There is no Stock Options data available. Total Compensation
There is no Total Compensation data available
Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Director, Sisu Capital Limited
AgeTotal Calculated CompensationThis person is connected to 3 Board Members in 3 different organizations across 1 different industries.
See Board Relationships47--
Background
Ms. Joy Victoria Seppala is a Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Director at Sisu Capital Ltd. She also serves as a Manager at Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC. From 1995 to 1998, Ms. Seppala served as Worldwide Head of the Special Situations Investment Group at Paribas Corporation in London. Prior to joining Paribas Corporation in 1992 as a Vice President, she worked for a number of years in the mergers and acquisitions departments of Kidder Peabody & Co. Incorporated, ... Drexel Burnham Lambert Incorporated, and Mitsubishi Trust & Banking Corporation.
Read Full Background
Corporate Headquarters
11-12 Hanover Street
London, -- W1S 1YQ
United Kingdom
Phone: 44 20 7290 5450
Fax: 44 20 7493 0471 Board Members Memberships
Manager
Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC
Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
Sisu Capital Limited
Panel Memner and Member of Code Committee
The Takeover Panel (U.K.)
Education
There is no Education data available. Other Affiliations
Huntsman Advanced Materials LLC
The Takeover Panel (U.K.)
The Huntsman connection is the significant one a company she works for ,annual revenues £11Billion,first quarter profits this yr circa $400m.apparently the wife of this extremely wealthy industrialist has been propping us up for most of this season ,but the word is not a penny more thus the arvo charge over our assets.
Calling in a favour as no other hope of investment ,is this what we relied on last season?
Obviously not that much of a special relationship,But is this where money could be found for Stadium investment .
Annual Compensation
There is no Annual Compensation data available. Stocks Options
There is no Stock Options data available. Total Compensation
There is no Total Compensation data available
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
That's all well and good but when you hear stuff come out like 'Coventry City Interim CEO Tim Fisher has said relegation has reduced the club's revenues by half' then you can't but ask why the fook didn't they try and do something about us trying to stay in the Championship?
:thinking about::thinking about:
They have created this mess and now want ACL, the Council, Higgs and the fans to help them out.
Just a couple of more players brought in last season could have made all the difference and if they had one iota of a brain they would have looked and said 'buying 2 players will cost x amount, but being relegated will cost us at least 8-10 times that amount!!
Daft fookers.
No doubt the textbook SISU response to that would be 'It's in the past now, we acknowledge we made mistakes but it's time to look forward' or something along those lines. They talk a lot about making mistakes but don't identify them or suggest how to rectify these mistakes-cliches designed to preserve season ticket sales.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
I'm thoroughly with the opinions of OSB and Godiva here! Both have made remarks that give us a good summary.
It's all well and good to put SISU down at every opportunity but whether for for the long term good of the club or themselves they are doing the things they or any other owners might do given the current circumstances.
Painting a slightly bleaker picture of our position for the season ahead may be deliberate from fisher rather than a whole bunch of high expectation but the end product will be some player investment this first season to try and achieve some relative success (promotion or playoffs)
While everyone harks on about 'fcuk off SISU' or 'they are a cancer' it's ill thought out and not helpful at all.
Has anybody got any alternative for our football club?
Please don't quote that Hoffman guy or Keys anymore. There are no deals from those avenues. If there was it would be now.
So what alternative is there folks? Do you want a football club or do you prefer to be non existent?
Yes it seems like or can be construed as a 'threat' by SISU to the trust and council etc but it's just a fact of life I'm afraid at this juncture and there is some relevancy to the request.
Stark choice but for the moment it's all we got.
OSB / Godiva.....given what our reality is and what SISU are requesting perhaps put argument aside and give your opinion on what can be achieved going forward with the Fisher plan would be for CCFC bearing in mind the new rules? I se the first season is the one we need to hit the ground running as we will have less investment parameters the following year for player budgets...
It's all well and good to put SISU down at every opportunity but whether for for the long term good of the club or themselves they are doing the things they or any other owners might do given the current circumstances.
Painting a slightly bleaker picture of our position for the season ahead may be deliberate from fisher rather than a whole bunch of high expectation but the end product will be some player investment this first season to try and achieve some relative success (promotion or playoffs)
While everyone harks on about 'fcuk off SISU' or 'they are a cancer' it's ill thought out and not helpful at all.
Has anybody got any alternative for our football club?
Please don't quote that Hoffman guy or Keys anymore. There are no deals from those avenues. If there was it would be now.
So what alternative is there folks? Do you want a football club or do you prefer to be non existent?
Yes it seems like or can be construed as a 'threat' by SISU to the trust and council etc but it's just a fact of life I'm afraid at this juncture and there is some relevancy to the request.
Stark choice but for the moment it's all we got.
OSB / Godiva.....given what our reality is and what SISU are requesting perhaps put argument aside and give your opinion on what can be achieved going forward with the Fisher plan would be for CCFC bearing in mind the new rules? I se the first season is the one we need to hit the ground running as we will have less investment parameters the following year for player budgets...
Sub
Well-Known Member
While everyone harks on about 'fcuk off SISU' or 'they are a cancer' it's ill thought out and not helpful at all.
Has anybody got any alternative for our football club? (quote Paxman)
everybody quotes it because they can see SISU have fucked this club good and proper and as for SISU being the only option thats crap to, people wanted the club, but orange ken fucked that up or have you forgoten that ?? SISU are in charge and not willing to invest in the club, they want the stadium and thats all they care about, other people want the club but SISU want their so called investment and are holding out till they get what they want, they are trying to hold a gun to the councils head to pay for SISU's fuck up for the past five years, and i hope the council dont fold on this!! if SISU get the stadium are they going to invest in the team ?? are they going to saddle the club with more debt and filter off the revenue ?? i dont know neither do you , but i know which one i belive would happen!!
Has anybody got any alternative for our football club? (quote Paxman)
everybody quotes it because they can see SISU have fucked this club good and proper and as for SISU being the only option thats crap to, people wanted the club, but orange ken fucked that up or have you forgoten that ?? SISU are in charge and not willing to invest in the club, they want the stadium and thats all they care about, other people want the club but SISU want their so called investment and are holding out till they get what they want, they are trying to hold a gun to the councils head to pay for SISU's fuck up for the past five years, and i hope the council dont fold on this!! if SISU get the stadium are they going to invest in the team ?? are they going to saddle the club with more debt and filter off the revenue ?? i dont know neither do you , but i know which one i belive would happen!!
Last edited:
I think I have already said my piece, but maybe we should make a FAQ-4 given the new situation and life in league 1.
But it will have to await the outcome of the ongoing negotiations as the result will direct the future of the club.
sky blue zam
Member
at the forum st the herbert a couple of weeks ago someone asked and tim fishers response was "its a great strategy" and that was all he said
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think I am fairly objective regarding sisu. Once we signed all our shares over to a hedge fund I don't know what we expected. They are a small company with 25 employees who manage business, or leave them to self manage.
We were an unsuitable and ridiculous purchase for them. They were bought in by ranson who proved poor in his choice of management team to do a job.
We were always high risk. All clubs falling out of the premier and not getting back within parachute payment timescales have subsequently endured administration and / or relegation.
However, as owners they have proved very poor. They offer zero business expertise but bring with them strangling decision making beurocracy that make Ford look like a sole trader. They do not communicate effectively and offer no confidence for the future at all. I am realistic we are stuck with them but let's not be blinded. The real problem is any relative success which did yield extra revenue will not go to the club,
Unlike most I see thorn as complicite to the issue. He is wedded to them as Keane is with their owners. He almost acts as a human shield. If he went they would be wholly exposed as they would not be able to recruit anyone else.
They are poor, poor owners but as things stand there is no option. They will go one day but I suspect a lot more grief is on the way first.
We were an unsuitable and ridiculous purchase for them. They were bought in by ranson who proved poor in his choice of management team to do a job.
We were always high risk. All clubs falling out of the premier and not getting back within parachute payment timescales have subsequently endured administration and / or relegation.
However, as owners they have proved very poor. They offer zero business expertise but bring with them strangling decision making beurocracy that make Ford look like a sole trader. They do not communicate effectively and offer no confidence for the future at all. I am realistic we are stuck with them but let's not be blinded. The real problem is any relative success which did yield extra revenue will not go to the club,
Unlike most I see thorn as complicite to the issue. He is wedded to them as Keane is with their owners. He almost acts as a human shield. If he went they would be wholly exposed as they would not be able to recruit anyone else.
They are poor, poor owners but as things stand there is no option. They will go one day but I suspect a lot more grief is on the way first.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I'll be honest Paxman, the argument that Hoffman is dead in the water because the deal hasn't been done yet or because Fisher says there's no offer is a weak one. It's naive to assume that things are as black and white as that. It can't be 'construed' as a threat by SISU, it is one, and as I said at the start of this thread, they are playing chicken with this club's long term future by attempting to shift blame onto ACL for our predicament.
Our accounts are still to be filed-and the deadline for this is fast approaching. The ramifications of missing this could have us at a points disadvantage or worse before a ball is kicked in August-yet SISU's stance with ACL is being used as an excuse for the budget, and hence the accounts, not tob be approved. The assumption that investment in the first team is inevitable is also unlikely to hold, if we take Timmy's words at face value. In the event that SISU miraculously decide to supply investment, Fisher's credibility takes another dive.
I find it difficult to see light at the end of the SISU tunnel.
mark82
Moderator
Problem is there is always someone else desperate for a chance in management that would take it.
As much as anything we need the embargo lifted immediately so we can take advantage of the decent free transfers. At this rate we are going to be left with the dross no-one else wants. Or they will have to pay fees, which is unlikely to happen.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Sorry Paxman not sure there is much I can say about the future under TF's plan. I dont really know the specifics of his plan or the financing of it. I do not see how there will be substantial funds available either to buy players or to fund decent experienced players on freebies or loans. TF goes on about things like share ownership once finances stabilised - well they had 5 years to address that and we are still in a mess.
Potentially there is room to take advantage of the FFP rules this coming season because our player budget I am guessing will be based on last years income but that seems contradicted by the need to get to break even asap. A better spend on players I do not think is guaranteed by CCFC acquiring income sources at the Ricoh - first priority seems to be to break even so you would assume those sources will be applied to get rid of the losses and you dont do that by spending greater on wages.
The whole thing is not clear, contradictory and from past experience based on smoke and mirrors. I can see what the accounting principles and controls should be I am just not sure if they will or have been applied.
What I take from TF's contribution to the CT is that they want the income sources to balance the books and that comes before anything else. I do not think they are really looking at speculating a little on players to get us straight back up and we are due a couple or more seasons in League 1. Their whole focus right now is not actually on the club although it is dressed up as such.... their focus is on the risk to their £40m and stopping it becoming £41m plus getting some control of the Ricoh
I totally agree the best outcome is club that pays its own way - but as it stands I don't think they have the vision to do it by success on the pitch, I hope I am wrong.
Trying to keep an open mind but that little word called trust keeps popping up and smashing against hedge fund. There is a lot in what TF said i feel uneasy about
Potentially there is room to take advantage of the FFP rules this coming season because our player budget I am guessing will be based on last years income but that seems contradicted by the need to get to break even asap. A better spend on players I do not think is guaranteed by CCFC acquiring income sources at the Ricoh - first priority seems to be to break even so you would assume those sources will be applied to get rid of the losses and you dont do that by spending greater on wages.
The whole thing is not clear, contradictory and from past experience based on smoke and mirrors. I can see what the accounting principles and controls should be I am just not sure if they will or have been applied.
What I take from TF's contribution to the CT is that they want the income sources to balance the books and that comes before anything else. I do not think they are really looking at speculating a little on players to get us straight back up and we are due a couple or more seasons in League 1. Their whole focus right now is not actually on the club although it is dressed up as such.... their focus is on the risk to their £40m and stopping it becoming £41m plus getting some control of the Ricoh
I totally agree the best outcome is club that pays its own way - but as it stands I don't think they have the vision to do it by success on the pitch, I hope I am wrong.
Trying to keep an open mind but that little word called trust keeps popping up and smashing against hedge fund. There is a lot in what TF said i feel uneasy about
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
OK I have not forgotten anything.
If it's 'crap' that there is no other option then what is the other option SUB?
You are quoting things that suggest you are in the know? You can't possibly know if they will invest anything?
I'm merely surmising what potentially they may do I'm not saying they will or that I know like you are.
I believe if they get a deal with the stadium revenue streams and a reduction in the rent then they would formulate a plan that includes some investment on the pitch. The rules that suggest we can base that on last seasons income give us a platform to do that this first season which would give us a better starting point than the rest of the league 1 teams.
If as you wish the council stand firm and don't 'fold' as you say - well then what SUB?
Whatever agreement is made with all the protagonist it will result in our football clubs survival and potentially give SISU a better structure to sell their interest on to another interested party (like Hoffman or whoever) With out it they and we will be up a creek without a paddle. You can call it putting a gun to the councils head if you like but it's just a stark reality all the same.
It's all very well lambasting SISU but at some point we all have to face the position we are in here and now and not the past.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Few people here are wallowing in the past (on the contrary, we're all trying to put it to the back of our minds)-plenty more are concerned about what the short and long term future holds for CCFC. The present realities are very grim and SISU's tactics are not endearing them to anybody if they wish to build bridges, as Seppala alluded to a few weeks ago. As stated many times, it is not the council that has the authority to renegotiate the lease-that is ACL's decision, the board of which the council has some representation.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Paxman do you think the council are right before making any such a deal to ask their tax payers to vote on if they agree with it.
Secondly do you think a condition of considering such a deal is that they are told the names of sisu's investors.
I think it would be a tad embarrasing and possibly negligible if the council struck such a deal with sisu. Then one day it leaks out that one of the investors is a billionaire. We just give them a cut price deal because a middleman says he is skint. Yet we don't know who they are to verify this.
If they are cutting their investment saying enough is enough no more money. I don't see why we should reward them with a cheaper deal. We have to know they really are skint first.
In all honesty I would rather see the council hold their ground. Then we really will find out if there are any options.
I think if the club is on in administration or on the verge of liquidation. An investor will come as long as they can do a deal with the council.
They get a chance at getting halve the arena develop rights. Also they can invest less on the playing side to get success. Topping league one will lead to 20k plus fans.
Successful team means more advertising for their company.
Last edited:
Lord_Nampil
Well-Known Member
Just got bk from work after reading all todays comments.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11688/7701878/Financial-fair-play-voted-in
This was voted in 3 days after we were relegated! I thought Fisher would have been clued up on it but seems he missed a trick when speaking after the game!
I think the stadium situation needs resolving asap!!!
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11688/7701878/Financial-fair-play-voted-in
This was voted in 3 days after we were relegated! I thought Fisher would have been clued up on it but seems he missed a trick when speaking after the game!
I think the stadium situation needs resolving asap!!!
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
SISU currently have a contract with ACL to rent the stadium - I believe this runs for circa 40 years.
SISU are (understandably) unhappy with the terms of this contract and would like to change it.
SISU would like the rent to be reduced, but don't seem to be offering anything in return (as far as we know).
If they really want to do a deal, wouldn't one possibility be a rent reduction in return for a % of the shares in CCFC?
That way, when the benefit of the reduced rent accrues to CCFC, ACL would share in that benefit.
SISU are (understandably) unhappy with the terms of this contract and would like to change it.
SISU would like the rent to be reduced, but don't seem to be offering anything in return (as far as we know).
If they really want to do a deal, wouldn't one possibility be a rent reduction in return for a % of the shares in CCFC?
That way, when the benefit of the reduced rent accrues to CCFC, ACL would share in that benefit.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
dazzle you are on the right thought lines....
Dong' you are assuming too much about any deal with out deeper thought for how it could be structured?
There are more ways than one to skin a cat! I have never suggested on here the Council should give SISU anything. I have often said there can be no freebies! That does not preclude them from agreeing a deal that is structured for payback if you will...
Dong' you are assuming too much about any deal with out deeper thought for how it could be structured?
There are more ways than one to skin a cat! I have never suggested on here the Council should give SISU anything. I have often said there can be no freebies! That does not preclude them from agreeing a deal that is structured for payback if you will...
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
..just a thought here.
Does anyone know the structure of the agreement that's on the 40 year lease?
Does it have term dates and balloon notes at the end or other structures we can't possibly know?
Not all leases are negotiated the same.
I've owned several in my business life and each one distinctly different!
Does anyone know the structure of the agreement that's on the 40 year lease?
Does it have term dates and balloon notes at the end or other structures we can't possibly know?
Not all leases are negotiated the same.
I've owned several in my business life and each one distinctly different!
Sky Blues
Active Member
I was interested in this line by Tim Fisher in response to question 2:
"Unlike other recent football club administrations, Coventry City’s balance sheet has already been significantly cleaned up which rules out any ‘value’ of the club going in to administration."
Could this be a reference to ARVO? Thinking about it, if you are broadly debt free, but are about to risk that by withholding the rent, wouldn't it make sense to set up a scenario where any significant value left in the club goes into a friendly (shell?) company so that if the organisation to which you are about to become indebted tries to retaliate by pushing for administration the threat would fail?
If you (or in this case an organisation such as ACL) cannot recover any debts by seeking administration, what can you possibly gain from going to the legal expense of doing so?
I'm no financial expert so I would welcome someone telling me if I am barking up the wrong tree here, but this read to me like Tim Fisher was saying "we've neutralised that threat."
"Unlike other recent football club administrations, Coventry City’s balance sheet has already been significantly cleaned up which rules out any ‘value’ of the club going in to administration."
Could this be a reference to ARVO? Thinking about it, if you are broadly debt free, but are about to risk that by withholding the rent, wouldn't it make sense to set up a scenario where any significant value left in the club goes into a friendly (shell?) company so that if the organisation to which you are about to become indebted tries to retaliate by pushing for administration the threat would fail?
If you (or in this case an organisation such as ACL) cannot recover any debts by seeking administration, what can you possibly gain from going to the legal expense of doing so?
I'm no financial expert so I would welcome someone telling me if I am barking up the wrong tree here, but this read to me like Tim Fisher was saying "we've neutralised that threat."
