could this not of been a way for hoffman to raise funds for part of his takeover plan? could be looked upon both ways i guess!
hahahahahaha!!!
Especially as he was apparently paid £2.8m...that should tide him over his period of unemployment
Lost £23million last year, and only 40% of investment going back to it's investors apparently.
He was highly successful when he was on the board here though, Hoffman & Ranson were kept in the dark the whole time.
he aint doing feck all for us, he is full of wank
Hoff has tried and tried real hard and we should be grateful for his efforts but, unfortunately, no one in their right mind wants to go near this financial disaster of a club nor do business with those fine trustworthy upstanding professionals from SISU.
Hoff has tried and tried real hard and we should be grateful for his efforts but, unfortunately, no one in their right mind wants to go near this financial disaster of a club nor do business with those fine trustworthy upstanding professionals from SISU.
Hoffman did,for three years, not in his right mind?
And if somebody needs proof of how hard he tried, they just need to look at the newly published accounts. They are an exact testiment to what he and Ranson and Elliott achieved over the three years they ran the club.
And all that time the nice people at SISU (who,after all, controlled the club) had no idea what was going on..............
Yes, but they couldn't control it as they only had one vote at the board.
Sisu's job was to provide funding within the businessplan - Ranson's (and the rest of the board whereof only one member was a sisu appointee) job was to run the club, keep within the budgets and live on the agreed financing. Three years down the line the money was gone, the funding used up and the losses bleeding the club to death. The holy trinity left the board, but the newly published accounts is their legacy.
GRENDEL ? Strange name where did that come from ? Now Grenden is a suburb of Leicester !!
It is from Beowulf, you uneducated buffoon.
Yes, but they couldn't control it as they only had one vote at the board.
Sisu's job was to provide funding within the businessplan - Ranson's (and the rest of the board whereof only one member was a sisu appointee) job was to run the club, keep within the budgets and live on the agreed financing. Three years down the line the money was gone, the funding used up and the losses bleeding the club to death. The holy trinity left the board, but the newly published accounts is their legacy.
He was highly successful when he was on the board here though, Hoffman & Ranson were kept in the dark the whole time.
Yes, but they couldn't control it as they only had one vote at the board.
Sisu's job was to provide funding within the businessplan - Ranson's (and the rest of the board whereof only one member was a sisu appointee) job was to run the club, keep within the budgets and live on the agreed financing. Three years down the line the money was gone, the funding used up and the losses bleeding the club to death. The holy trinity left the board, but the newly published accounts is their legacy.
So you are honestly suggesting that they would provide the funding but would allow themselves to be outvoted at the Board. If so, then they are even more stupid than I thought.
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 ....
Missed your response Tommy, but now I've seen it so let me explain:
You cannot believe sisu didn't set up the show initially holding full control themself.
Well, you need to remember that there were actually two parties injecting values at the take over - sisu and Ranson.
It would be a dealbreaker for Ranson to inject Prozone and then leave every decision open to a potential veto by sisu. Think about for a minute - would you do it?
On the other hand, sisu didn't know anything about football (think of them as bankers), so their usual practice is to have a board with professionels running the operation within the budgets and financial plans.
Both investors (sisu and Ranson) agreed to the plans and the budgets before they put their marks on the take over documents and it's within the budgets you find sisu's means of control.
As long as the board ran the operation within the budgets, they triggered the planned financial installments (tranching). But when the income failed and costs wasn't control'ed accordingly sisu were no longer obliged to pump in more funds - and then they used their only real power: Stopped the funding.
So in the daily operation sisu had nothing to offer and therefore didn't require majority vote. They happily relied on the professionals like Ranson, Hoffmann, Elliott and who else was on the board.
Tommy, that really made me laugh! Great humor!
But no, we will probably never agree and it is unlikely they will show us their shareholder agreement (maybe somebody could ask Hoffman at the next game?).
Let me just add, that the 'simple voting' system is the most used system when more shareholders are involved.
It is much more uncommon votes are distributed to reflect the amount of shares, and then it is mostly when the investors are private individuals or if the setup is a co-orperation between industrial partners.
You argue that sisu's investors would not be happy with this system, but I don't think they know how the club is run ... they have placed an amount in sisu's care and a small percentage was put into one of the funds that owns the club. And even if they were presented with a plan, budget and everything before they put in their money, they would probably feel more safe with Ranson at the helm than sisu's investment managers.
And again, sisu's ultimate control was in the budgets. If Ranson had kept the financials within the agreed budgets he would still be here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?