Interesting statistic (1 Viewer)

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Since Thorn's been at the club, here's an analysis of transfers in, compared with transfers out (the latter including players released, etc.). Makes you realise how reliant we have become on bringing youngsters through the academy.

08/09: 8 players signed, 15 transferred out / released
09/10: 7 players signed, 16 transferred out / released
10/11: 9 players signed, 11 transferred out / released
11/12: 4 players signed, 14 transferred out / released

I can't be 100% sure of the numbers in any given season as sources via the Internet aren't always reliable, but names and numbers and the overall narrative looks about right. A such, it looks like 28 players coming in and 56 leaving. A ratio of 2:1 over a four-season duration

 

---

[dongonzalos]

Thorn out. It's his fault this has happened since he has been at the club.
If we are not top of the league in the first ten games sack him.
If we get promoted sack him as we all know he can't do it in the championship.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Yes indeed. The fat, bald, clueless serf.

An analysis of transfer renenues over the term seems to indicate a surplus of £8m - there or thereabouts.

For a quarter of that, according to Ranson, we could have signed Jack Cork, Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll. Who have only gone for £60m combined since. Still, that wouldn't have persuaded leaving players to stay, saved us from relegation and made us cash-rich or anything like that would it?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Yes indeed. The fat, bald, clueless serf.

An analysis of transfer renenues over the term seems to indicate a surplus of £8m - there or thereabouts.

For a quarter of that, according to Ranson, we could have signed Jack Cork, Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll. Who have only gone for £60m combined since. Still, that wouldn't have persuaded leaving players to stay, saved us from relegation and made us cash-rich or anything like that would it?

According to Ranson we were debt free, so shouldn't really have been a problem buying them at the time should it? Of course, "According to Ranson", should be used in the same context as "pinch of salt".

Where did you get the analysis of transfer revenues from? Know that the accounts a few years ago showed we only got £3.5million combined for Dann and Fox, despite "according to Ranson" it being around £5million for Dann, and £3million for Fox. Seem to remember that £1,5 million wouldn't buy Fox's left toe.

£60million? Jack Cork was nowhere near £5million, £750,000 wasn't it?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

According to Ranson we were debt free, so shouldn't really have been a problem buying them at the time should it? Of course, "According to Ranson", should be used in the same context as "pinch of salt".

Where did you get the analysis of transfer revenues from? Know that the accounts a few years ago showed we only got £3.5million combined for Dann and Fox, despite "according to Ranson" it being around £5million for Dann, and £3million for Fox. Seem to remember that £1,5 million wouldn't buy Fox's left toe.

£60million? Jack Cork was nowhere near £5million, £750,000 wasn't it?

It's hard to deal with transfer fees when everything under SISU is undisclosed, and as other more experienced members of this board will tell you, that which is entered into the accounts will invariably suit the company, as much as a reflection on reality; but in broad terms the figures being as follows:

Borrowdale 350,000
Tabb 500,000
Dann 3,500,000
Simpson 300,000
Fox 2,500,000
Best 500,000
Gunnarsson 500,000
Turner 750,000
Jutkiewitz 1,300,000
Bigirimana 500,000
Keogh 800,000

That sums some £11.5m

As for the £60m figure; well that was a rounded up figure. It's certainly closer to £60m than less than £2m - that being the point

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

And if you're asserting that everything that Ranson says is 'unreliable':

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...cott-dann-is-a-record-breaker-92746-23924398/

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...c-news/2009/07/24/no-headline-92746-24229754/

Accordingly, the figures I've chosen to use, if anything, look conservative

 

[guicey15]

Would never have got £60million for Carroll and Henderson. No chance of us being able to drive up the price like Newcastle did for Carroll and Sunderland did for Henderson, absolutely no way. They may never even of fulfilled there potential at us anywhere near as much as they have now, more like £10million for the 2 of them at the very most

 

[lordsummerisle]

And if you're asserting that everything that Ranson says is 'unreliable':

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...cott-dann-is-a-record-breaker-92746-23924398/

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...c-news/2009/07/24/no-headline-92746-24229754/

Accordingly, the figures I've chosen to use, if anything, look conservative

Well, yes, which is why I mentioned the figures that Ranson gave, which bore no relation to those actually given in the clubs accounts.

The clubs accounts that always showed an enormous amount of debt, for a "debt-free" club too.



Figures designed to convince people of the legend of Ranson, the "football man, and astute businesman".

Undisclosed at the time was always lauded as the only sensible thing, wouldn't want to get ripped off by other clubs knowing how much money we had to spend, would we?

Not exactly the only club to use the "undisclosed" angle, every transfer fee that Danny Fox has been involved in, has been "undisclosed, believed to be in the region of...", think would find the same for most.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Would never have got £60million for Carroll and Henderson. No chance of us being able to drive up the price like Newcastle did for Carroll and Sunderland did for Henderson, absolutely no way. They may never even of fulfilled there potential at us anywhere near as much as they have now, more like £10million for the 2 of them at the very most

If, of course, we were ever anywhere likely to be involved in buying them at all.

Which is doubtful.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Would never have got £60million for Carroll and Henderson. No chance of us being able to drive up the price like Newcastle did for Carroll and Sunderland did for Henderson, absolutely no way. They may never even of fulfilled there potential at us anywhere near as much as they have now, more like £10million for the 2 of them at the very most

That's not totally the point. What I stated was that they have turned our to be decent players, and they would probably have helped us stave off relegation; which in turn might have persuaded other quali players to stay who have left on frees. And if we had have decided to cash in on them, then the return - and we could debate all day whether it would have been £10, 15 or 20m for that matter - is much more than they would have cost

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So the basis of your whole debate, lordsummerisle, appears to be that we can't trust anyone - our ex-chairman, newspapers who have access to personnel in both buying and selling clubs or the internet; and as such, any debate regarding our clubs's conduct in recent years will always be greeted and nullified by your one-size-fits-all destructive caveat?

 

[lordsummerisle]

So the basis of your whole debate, lordsummerisle, appears to be that we can't trust anyone - our ex-chairman, newspapers who have access to personnel in both buying and selling clubs or the internet; and as such, any debate regarding our clubs's conduct in recent years will always be greeted and nullified by your one-size-fits-all destructive caveat?

We can trust what is in the accounts I suppose, as they legally have to be signed off as accurate.

Accept the figures in the accounts as true, then obviously the ex-chairman's statements are somewhat economical with the truth.

As for the newspapers? Think the Telegraph the only newspaper with those sorts of inflated figures anywhere. Wonder who they got those figures off?

 

[WillieStanley]

There's too many "what ifs" going on at the moment.

We are where we are. We appear to be building again. Look to the future because what has gone on in the past won't change. It appears our most recent SISU board are at least confronting the problem.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

You think you can trust accounts as being 'true and fair'? I've been running businesses for donkey's years, and whilst there's a basis of truth to them, they are open to wild exaggerations to suit the purposes of the filing company. We would ' manipulate' the figures to mitigate any sell-on rights we may be carrying over - in this case to Walsall - as well as fitting in with the bigger picture of how the asset was to sit within the buisnesses' accounts for any given year.

The figures for Dann and Fox are reproduced by reporters working from the angle of both the buying and selling club; or are you saying everyone in the whole world has fallen under Ranson's spell of deceit?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

There's too many "what ifs" going on at the moment.

We are where we are. We appear to be building again. Look to the future because what has gone on in the past won't change. It appears our most recent SISU board are at least confronting the problem.

Whilst true, we are still asking the question - currently - 'is the squad good enough/strong enough/with sufficient depth'? Understanding what has happened in recent years gives a better context to debate that point - hence the statistics at the head of this thread

 

[lordsummerisle]

You think you can trust accounts as being 'true and fair'? I've been running businesses for donkey's years, and whilst there's a basis of truth to them, they are open to wild exaggerations to suit the purposes of the filing company. We would ' manipulate' the figures to mitigate any sell-on rights we may be carrying over - in this case to Walsall - as well as fitting in with the bigger picture of how the asset was to sit within the buisnesses' accounts for any given year.

The figures for Dann and Fox are reproduced by reporters working from the angle of both the buying and selling club; or are you saying everyone in the whole world has fallen under Ranson's spell of deceit?

Those figures are nowhere else other than the Coventry Telegraph, are you saying that the Coventry Telegraph hasn't always regurgitated whatever information the club throws to it?

Ranson is correct though, and the accounts are false, hooray, we are debt free again!

 

[Grendel]

Thorn out. It's his fault this has happened since he has been at the club.
If we are not top of the league in the first ten games sack him.
If we get promoted sack him as we all know he can't do it in the championship.

Surely if this statistic was right it is more of a case for the defence for Coleman. I am struggling to identify the -8 in the second season though I can only see 10 releases.

 

[Grendel]

So the basis of your whole debate, lordsummerisle, appears to be that we can't trust anyone - our ex-chairman, newspapers who have access to personnel in both buying and selling clubs or the internet; and as such, any debate regarding our clubs's conduct in recent years will always be greeted and nullified by your one-size-fits-all destructive caveat?

I have to say I find it very difficult to believe that we ever were going to sign Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll. With regard to Henderson we extended a loan period in his season here so he was not going to be permanent that season and then got quite a severe injury and returned to his club. So when would a fee ever have been discussed. Also Sunderland changed manager at the end of his returning season and Steve Bruce stated Henderson was part of his plans and as soon as he was fit he started making appearances in the first team.

Carroll made 11 apperances for Preston in the 2007/08 season when Ranson joined the club. Carroll had already won a Jackie Milburn trophy and was gaining recognition as a rising star. Prior to going to Preston he had already scored in a friendly against Juventus and was tipped for great things. By the following season he was on the subs bench for Newcastle and played 16 games for them.

Ranson made these statements in the Telegraph with no evidence but did say at the end he would return if Garry Hoffman could get the club from SISU - now is that the same Hoffman who has an interest in the Trinity Group?

 

[dongonzalos]

Surely if this statistic was right it is more of a case for the defence for Coleman. I am struggling to identify the -8 in the second season though I can only see 10 releases.

Dissapointed in how long it took you, this was posted last night

 

[Astute]

RR was truthful in what he said at the time about our lack of debt. He said we don't owe any money to banks. We don't have a loan or overdraft. What he never said was the money SISU were investing was counted as loans from them to us, but being run by SISU and owing money to SISU in a way makes us debt free but owing money to who owns us.

 

[lordsummerisle]

RR was truthful in what he said at the time about our lack of debt. He said we don't owe any money to banks. We don't have a loan or overdraft. What he never said was the money SISU were investing was counted as loans from them to us, but being run by SISU and owing money to SISU in a way makes us debt free but owing money to who owns us.

He was disingenuous at best, though people who actually believed it had only themselves to blame really. The majority of debts not cleared on their take-over either, merely rolled up and repackaged(similar to the sub-prime debt was that started the whole financial crisis), just that Sisu were left holding the debt parcel when it went off.

We owed money to Ranson himself for loans, which unlike the Sisu loans, the club had to pay a hefty amount of interest on.

 

[Astute]

I agree, but we didn't owe money to banks. You say we owed money to RR and was on a large APR. What was it and how do you know?

Very economical with the truth, but still was true.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I agree, but we didn't owe money to banks. You say we owed money to RR and was on a large APR. What was it and how do you know?

Very economical with the truth, but still was true.

In the accounts, in one of the stickys in board/finance discussion board, also something in the RR thread in there.

Partiularly interesting the lack of value that Pro-Zone brought to the club.

 

[Astute]

How much interest was charged then? You state as a fact you know it was an extortionate rate.

 

[lordsummerisle]

How much interest was charged then? You state as a fact you know it was an extortionate rate.

Showed you where to look for the facts, if you're too lazy to look them up yourself it's not really my problem.

 

[Astute]

Showed you where to look for the facts, if you're too lazy to look them up yourself it's not really my problem.

So you have the details you say, but want me to look for them to back up what you say?

Don't fancy a wild goose chase. Have better things to do with my time.

 

[lordsummerisle]

So you have the details you say, but want me to look for them to back up what you say?

Don't fancy a wild goose chase. Have better things to do with my time.

They are on this board in the Board/finance discussions, not asking you to go down to companies house, let me know when you're next having a crap and i'll come and wipe your arse for you.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

He was disingenuous at best, though people who actually believed it had only themselves to blame really. The majority of debts not cleared on their take-over either, merely rolled up and repackaged(similar to the sub-prime debt was that started the whole financial crisis), just that Sisu were left holding the debt parcel when it went off.

We owed money to Ranson himself for loans, which unlike the Sisu loans, the club had to pay a hefty amount of interest on.

I agree that when SISU took over the club, a proportion of the debt was taken over by them. Nothing unusual there.

In what way was this "similar to the sub-prime debt that started the whole financial crisis"? I'm intrigued.....

 

[Astute]

They are on this board in the Board/finance discussions, not asking you to go down to companies house, let me know when you're next having a crap and i'll come and wipe your arse for you.

Typical moronic reply from you I see.

Do you wipe the arse for everyone who does not believe what you say? If you did it 24 hours a day you wouldn't have enough time to do everyone. So it is down as proof, not hearsay that SISU paid an extortionate rate of interest to RR for a loan he gave to them. You have the proof you say, but can't be bothered to find it. Just the same as other comments you can't prove I see.

 

[skybluedaze]

Thorn out. It's his fault this has happened since he has been at the club.
If we are not top of the league in the first ten games sack him.
If we get promoted sack him as we all know he can't do it in the championship.

He will get the team promoted, but i don't think he's the right man to take the club forward after that. I would accept second or even third spot after the first few months, but anything lower than that he's got to go. I don't think this will be the case, he'll be ideal for League 1.

 

[lordsummerisle]

I agree that when SISU took over the club, a proportion of the debt was taken over by them. Nothing unusual there.

In what way was this "similar to the sub-prime debt that started the whole financial crisis"? I'm intrigued.....

Having the debt in itself back in those heady days, wasn't thought of as necessarily a bad thing, it could be rolled over and repackaged as an asset, which could be used as collateral for other loans. Unfortunately for the financial whizzkids all the slicing and dicing of these(generally classed as low-risk by the ratings agencies, though that's another story) debt-packages all came home to roost when Bear Stens went bust and all the debt that was borrowed against other debt was found to be intrinsically worthless.

It then became virtually impossible to raise funds against asets that had a low credit risk, let alone debt with little or no assets to back them up.

Maybe wrong, but the repackaging of the debt, rather than actually paying it off, as is what happened when Sisu took over, looks a classic case of this. The timeline of taking over, initial investment, then much reduced investment, and accelerated sale of assets would tend to support this.

Think you're more the professional(along with OSB) on this sort of thing, does it seem feasible or not?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Typical moronic reply from you I see.

Do you wipe the arse for everyone who does not believe what you say? If you did it 24 hours a day you wouldn't have enough time to do everyone. So it is down as proof, not hearsay that SISU paid an extortionate rate of interest to RR for a loan he gave to them. You have the proof you say, but can't be bothered to find it. Just the same as other comments you can't prove I see.

Fucks sake, the figures are on this website, just look at the top of the screen.

You just don't want to know do you?

"Loans. Much is discussed about the SISU and other loans. Here are the facts as have so far been made available. On takeover the net liabilities of the group were discounted down by £35m leaving net debts of £8m for SISU to fund plus £3m losses from takeover until 31/05/08. By 31/05/08 they had provided a loan of £11m, this money loaned to the company to pay its debts. During the year to 31/05/09 these loans to SBS&L had risen by £12.4m to £23.4m. A further £700k was provided in 2010. Not all of that cash came to CCFC some would have covered the June 2008 acquisition of Prozone Group and funding its liabilities. Bear in mind that the funding SISU investors provide are loans to SBS&L that doesnt mean it all filters down to CCFC Ltd although because of cash flow difficulties much will have. RR was able to say we dont owe any banks but neglected to make clear we sure as hell owed SISU – we were never debt free as claimed. In fact there was £1.5m owed to RR’s own company Arley Group PLC in addition to SISU loans. The SISU loans do not charge interest those from Arley Group PLC did £153745 (2009) £310059 (2010)"

 

[lordsummerisle]

Typical moronic reply from you I see.

Do you wipe the arse for everyone who does not believe what you say? If you did it 24 hours a day you wouldn't have enough time to do everyone. So it is down as proof, not hearsay that SISU paid an extortionate rate of interest to RR for a loan he gave to them. You have the proof you say, but can't be bothered to find it. Just the same as other comments you can't prove I see.

What other comments I can't prove?

Bit more, very well hidden in the Board/Finance discussions thread under Prozone and RR, took 2 seconds for me to find, but you may have a little more trouble, so helping you out.

Prozone and RR

Something on a post by Brighton Sky Blue got me thinking about what it was Prozone brought to the SBS&L Group and what RR got out of being involved.

SBS&L owned the Prozone Group up until 07/06/11

We have always assumed that Prozone Group made good profits.

Well there are 4 companies in that sub Group
Prozone Group (holding company)
Prozone Sports Limited (trading company owned by Prozone Group)
Prozone Media Limited (dormant didn't trade)
Prozone Sports international Limited (dormant didn't trade)

Prozone Group has had NO trading activity in the years to 31/05 2009,2010 or 2011... so no profits there to contribute. Interestingly that company did owe £1,563,141 to SBS&L as at 31/05/11 the company and its debt were acquired on 07/06/11 by SUP SAS. That I take to mean that SUP repaid the £1.5m to SBS&L and took on the debt that Prozone Group owed themselves. The other side of this is £1,563,141 was then owed by SBS&L to Arley Group PLC (owned by RR)..... would guess this is the value of Prozone to RR when he brought it in to the party (debt matches a liability)

Prozone Sports Limited, appears to be the only trading entity. In 2009 it made £312k in 2010 £205K and in 2011 it lost £73k..... so no great positives to SBS&L there. At 31/05/11 PSL had accumulated £2m in tax losses. Which suggests it never was that profitable
At 31/05/11 PSL owed SBS&L £2.2m. That debt was also transferred to SUP on 07/06/11. I assume SBS&L received payment for this amount on the transfer
It provided £80K pa in sports analysis services to CCFC and CCFC owed PSL £93k at 31/05/11
It paid Arley Group PLC the following amounts for RR's services 2009 £69K 2010 £75k and 2011 £123k. During those same years Arley Group invoiced CCFC H for RR's services 2008 £169k 2009 £226K 2010 £228K 2011 No details given but guess at £190k

interest accrued on SBS&L debt to Arley Group (RR) 2009 £154K 2010 £156K 2011 £130k (guess because no details in 2011 accounts)

Thoughts .....

07/06/11 SBS&L shifted some debt on by transferring the PG £1.5m to someone else so that meant it either repaid Arley or SUP now owed Arley. Either way SBS&L lost an asset and an equal value liability from its balance sheet
07/06/11 it looks like SBS&L got repaid by or is owed by SUP £2.2m but it also means that of the £29.7m put into SBS&L by SISU that at least 2.2m went into PSL

RR or Arley have taken from the SBS&L Group (including CCFC) £1,080k for RR's services, £440K in interest and repaid £1.5m in just over 3 years.

Have seen it said that RR had the right idea..... but clearly he let the overheads build and losses mount. We never could have afforded to bring in the likes of Carroll, Henderson etc unless that brought immediate success which in turn enhanced the individual sell value..... that was not guaranteed and both players could have disappeared in the championship if with us.

Have seen it said that he based it on youth, maybe but it was bought in youth not from our academy. Our academy was decent enough long before he came and wasnt he considering shutting it at one point ? (might be wrong on that). It is great having a plan but it has to be affordable.

In the meantime it looks to me that RR was pretty well rewarded and that Prozone didnt actually bring that much to the group until we got the sales preceeds (and we cant be sure of that value).

Just how good was RR and his Board of Directors for CCFC?

Ok .... thats off my chest ..... back to the football ​

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Having the debt in itself back in those heady days, wasn't thought of as necessarily a bad thing, it could be rolled over and repackaged as an asset, which could be used as collateral for other loans. Unfortunately for the financial whizzkids all the slicing and dicing of these(generally classed as low-risk by the ratings agencies, though that's another story) debt-packages all came home to roost when Bear Stens went bust and all the debt that was borrowed against other debt was found to be intrinsically worthless.

It then became virtually impossible to raise funds against asets that had a low credit risk, let alone debt with little or no assets to back them up.

Maybe wrong, but the repackaging of the debt, rather than actually paying it off, as is what happened when Sisu took over, looks a classic case of this. The timeline of taking over, initial investment, then much reduced investment, and accelerated sale of assets would tend to support this.

Think you're more the professional(along with OSB) on this sort of thing, does it seem feasible or not?

It's certainly true to say that having debt in those far off days was a lot cheaper (and a lot easier to finance when required) than it is now. However debt (in the context we're talking about it here - i.e. money owed by the club/business to third parties) is a liability and I don't think even our brighter bankers have yet managed to repackage liabilities as assets.

The sub-prime crisis was all about making poor security for loans appear to be much better security than it really was, so that third and fourth parties were happy to "buy" packages of these loans, thinking that they were backed by property that would repay the loans if the creditor defaulted. In reality this "rock solid" security turned out to (often) be overvalued property that in many cases was virtually unsaleable. The dominos then started to fall....

I agree with you that RR's comments about being "debt free" were misleading, if not necessarily totally factually incorrect as he did generally specify "bank debt", but I think that the analogy to the sub-prime crisis is a step too far.

However the whole crisis certainly impacted on us, as SISU would have found it more difficult and more expensive to raise additional finance. Who knows what might have happened if the world economy had kept going for 2 or 3 more years?

 

[lordsummerisle]

It's certainly true to say that having debt in those far off days was a lot cheaper (and a lot easier to finance when required) than it is now. However debt (in the context we're talking about it here - i.e. money owed by the club/business to third parties) is a liability and I don't think even our brighter bankers have yet managed to repackage liabilities as assets.

The sub-prime crisis was all about making poor security for loans appear to be much better security than it really was, so that third and fourth parties were happy to "buy" packages of these loans, thinking that they were backed by property that would repay the loans if the creditor defaulted. In reality this "rock solid" security turned out to (often) be overvalued property that in many cases was virtually unsaleable. The dominos then started to fall....

I agree with you that RR's comments about being "debt free" were misleading, if not necessarily totally factually incorrect as he did generally specify "bank debt", but I think that the analogy to the sub-prime crisis is a step too far.

However the whole crisis certainly impacted on us, as SISU would have found it more difficult and more expensive to raise additional finance. Who knows what might have happened if the world economy had kept going for 2 or 3 more years?

Bow to your superior knowledge on this, just thought that they may have had the intention of using the clubs debt to access more funding, in some arcane financial manner.

RR certainly knew how to spin a line though:

"Ray Ranson, the club’s dynamic young Chairman, is undoubtedly a modern-day visionary but the difference from Jimmy Hill is that he is not only experienced in soccer but is equipped with proven business experience and skills and as a result has clear business objectives of where he plans to take Coventry City over the next couple of years working closely with the owners of the Ricoh Arena,ACL.

And as the press and Sky Blues fans have quickly learned from Ray’s open and honest approach in his 18 months at the helm, he won’t be making any promises that he can’t deliver simply to generate positive PR. That is not the style of the man…. Indeed, as he has repeated on several occasions, the only promise he is willing to give to the fans is that he will leave the club ‘in better shape’ than the organisation he took over when the Sky Blues were on the brink of going into Administration.

“Yes the club was almost £40 million in debt, losing about £8 million a year. We have forecast to reduce the losses significantly. And all the debts including the bank, long term creditors etc have been cleared. We’re now one of only three clubs in the country that is debt free,” he reflected. However, the blunt talking 48 year old northerner would rather not talk in detail about the mistakes made by the club’s managements of the past and you will definitely not find any signs promoting Operation Premiership around the club
offices in the Ricoh Arena! For as his fellow directors and staff will confirm, Ray Ranson is a man with a mission – his goal is to create a new chapter in the history of Coventry City by building a club with a reputation for consistent success on the field and an organisation that is equally as professional off it. "