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?
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
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
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
Dissapointed in how long it took you, this was posted last nightSurely 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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?
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?