Does it really matter if Godiva is anti or pro SISU, it is his point of view/opinion. Why does it matter so much !!!, This is a forum and if we all had the same bloody opinion then this forum is finished. Any Cov supporter has my respect however he feels or thinks.
The Rev
Does it really matter if Godiva is anti or pro SISU, it is his point of view/opinion. Why does it matter so much !!!, This is a forum and if we all had the same bloody opinion then this forum is finished. Any Cov supporter has my respect however he feels or thinks.
The Rev
I admit I have agreed to sisu's strategy and still do. It is important - for whoever owns the club - that the costs and income are balanced in a way the club is not bled to death. To have a future we need to be profitable to invest. I don't like the idea that we get new owners and when they don't have more money to spend we run them out of town and invite in new investors, spend their money and then run them out of town. I simply don't like the morale behind it.
So I don't like the way sisu came in, and I don't like the way they are being forced out.
I also admit that I am junkie for new and innovative ideas. We won't progres if we keep doing the same thing. Brody's ideas are not bad - they are untried at the club, but only by putting them to the test will we know if they are brilliant or bad ideas. If we - the fans - were content with our owners, we wouldn't automatically shoot down new ideas. But as things are, we will never accept anything from sisu other than their departure.
My own suggestion to have a blueprint for how we play was also shot down. Yet, we see every match how we struggle to find a system that will work for even 45 minutes. When AT goes we will get a new manager who will introduce a new system that requires different players. I can't see us getting anywhere near promotion that way.
Never mind - I am not balanced in my postings, who are?
Can I criticise sisu? Certainly! And I have.
Let me summarize where they in my eyes have failed miserably:
1) They failed to get in co-investors at an early stage when they must have realized it would be the only way to buy into the stadium.
2) They sat back for way too long and let Ranson/Hoffman run us to the ground.
But their biggest failure is:
3) After reshuffling the board in march they should have been frank, honest and open in their communication with the fans. After three years they should have realized just how important it is to treat the fans with respect and be on friendly terms. I realize that is not how they go about their normal businesses, but they should have listned to Brody and let him handle the communication. They should really have laid the cards on the table for all to see - held an open meeting explaining exactly where the club was in terms of finances and how they intended to turn the tides. Yes, players would be leaving to cut costs. No, we really shouldn't expect high profile replacements for players leaving. Yes, we are back to square one with buying young players with the intend of selling them again with profit.
Instead they shut up more or less completely and only communicated when absolutely forced to.
In my professionel life I am used to deal with investors, and between you and me: Sometimes I absolutely hate them. They are a specie not originating from this planet!
Still, we can't live without them.
This investor is a different name, very different as you will soon see.
And we know this as certain facts? Really?
Investors - like sisu - get in with a plan and a budget to back it.
Ranson was in charge of running the club, so he was in charge of the finances.
Sadly he failed to deliver on the budget and so when the money after almost three years were all spent and the club was still running at a considerable loss, then there were two options left. Either the investors threw in some more money, or the club needed to sell a few players to cover the deficits.
Selling players with a profit was probably part of the strategy.
Either way you look at it, Ranson failed and the failings were before selling Fox and Dann. Selling those players were the direct concequence of Ransons failure.
As I see it, sisu are now back sticking to the original strategy: Buy young and (hopefully) upcoming players, get the club to a financial breakeven, sell players with a profit and invest when possible in new players without (again) risking the life of the club.
And how do we know this as certain facts?...... these are your assumptions
Should Ranson, Hoffman, Elliott be succesful in buying out sisu, then we can all hope for a new beginning. But somehow they will have to abide to a plan and a budget set by the new investors. In that plan getting the club out of the constant financial problems will be a key factor, so don't expect too many high profile signings and players on 15K/w. Any investor would only have to look at our neighbors to see that splashing millions for fun on players and high profile managers do not necessarily bring about success and promotion.
we have always had to sell players to pay our way or to pay debts. It is not a strategy purely adopted by SISU, even the likes of BR GR & MM made similar decisions. Really do not see why anyone is surprised or disappointed by it - it is a fact of life in the finances at CCFC. Nor is buying players in at a low price and selling on for a profit a revolutionary way of conducting business that RR should claim credit for. Its simple economics at most clubs. Prices depend on there being a willing buyer at a higher price, the player wanting to go and CCFC's need for cash
The responsibility for having to operate in such a manner is not simply SISU's, nor does it relate to the last 4 years only.
If what i was told a while back is correct Oriental and it isn't Barry Hearn
If you're going by the thread on here some months ago about a potential Hong Kong businessman, then you're hardly in the know are you?
Anything more substantial?
All will be revealed soon ........ truth or not. Now that is the only certainty
The Chinese are the new arabs in this world when it comes to wealth AND they love footie especially English football. The big goal in China is to become a football force but thats years away so the next best thing for them is to get involved here first. I was told sometime ago about these people Hoff has in tow and if it's them and they do takeover we will become the richest club in the midlands overnight, just how much of those riches we, the football club get who knows but i suspect it will be a bit better than what we are getting now.If you're going by the thread on here some months ago about a potential Hong Kong businessman, then you're hardly in the know are you?
Anything more substantial?
Totally agree - it is endemic throughout nearly all clubs outside The Premier League - unless backed by a multi-millionare who is prepared to throw caution to the wind.
The model is simple - invest in the academy, develop young players, blood them in the 1st team, cash in, pump the money back into the academy and so on. Every now and then you might have a windfall (e.g. Rooney - a bit extreme I know) - and you can indulge in a more experienced and accomplished player.
However you need to strive to balance the books so the club can survive the comings and goings of owners. You cannot base your business model on the hope that there is an endless line of investors willing to throw money into the club to prop up debt.
You have to cut your cloth to fit - and yes that hurts if it is too drastic - but getting the right balance between spending money and reducing debt is not easy.
SISU have tried. They have made mistakes - the biggest, in my opinion, following Ranson's lead. However the overall philosophy is sound - try to balance the books and achieve a modicum of self-sufficiency. As I say though, they have failed but then again they are a hedge fund and have relied upon "football men" to guide them - Ranson and then Dulieu. They stand judged by those appointments more than anything in my opinion.
You maybe had a case until this gem. Yes, we've really invested in young and up and coming players in the last 18 months..As I see it, sisu are now back sticking to the original strategy: Buy young and (hopefully) upcoming players, get the club to a financial breakeven, sell players with a profit and invest when possible in new players without (again) risking the life of the club.
The Chinese are the new arabs in this world when it comes to wealth AND they love footie especially English football. The big goal in China is to become a football force but thats years away so the next best thing for them is to get involved here first. I was told sometime ago about these people Hoff has in tow and if it's them and they do takeover we will become the richest club in the midlands overnight, just how much of those riches we, the football club get who knows but i suspect it will be a bit better than what we are getting now.
You maybe had a case until this gem. Yes, we've really invested in young and up and coming players in the last 18 months..ointlaugh:
You also forget that they didn't stick to the budget to back the plan. We assume that is due to the credit crunch, but nobody from SISU has communicated this to us.
If you don't think Keogh was a great signing - and has increased in value then you really don't know what you're on about Mr Negative.
Where's your buddy Hackney Fox - you used to agree with every word he said.
Still here, I've not been posting as I almost feel for you.
Sat here, reading these posts and absolutely amazed that:
You'll jump into bed with any bugger as long as they aern't sisu
You want Ranson back, the man who signed Coleman and Boothroyd, both of whom I told you would be poor.
Ranson who every other team told to fuck off, Southampton took admin instead, as they realised what sisu were about, but Rnason didn't.
He signed a fair number of players, only 3 of which were 'great' signings, in that they played well and you made money from them.
You should think very, very carefully before jumping in to bed with 'anyone but sisu' especially when their front man is involved.
Also, this assertion that anyone at the club during SISU's reign must automatically be black-balled is retarded.
Hoffman quit because of the way they were running things. Trying to sell a promising youngster in Conor Thomas was the final straw.
Furthermore Hoffman is a very well respected and fairly wealthy guy whose only interest in this situation is sorting out the club he loves. Anyone saying otherwise needs their head read.
They didn't stick to the plan, despite Godiva saying they had and it's all Ransons fault, because maybe of the credit crunch and sisu were scared to tell us of a change in circumstances as it would worry their investors in all the other funds as well as ours
ANY change for the better, you can argue who you wish your suitors to be, but it doesn't really matter. Let's face it, can it get any worse?
If sisu walk away you could be 30m in debt to them and a hedge fund will wa nt their money back quicker than a bank.
They are still covering your losses.
If someone new comes in and they have a 30m debt and are still losing 6,7, 8 million a year will that be any better?
For you to get out of this and actually run without a loss, which you all seem to think is nirvana, then they need 30m to pay off sisu, anything between 50 and 100m to buy the ground to get the income from that, plus millions spent on the team.
Do you really think that some foreign investor with 100-150 million to invest can't find another club who already own their own ground.
On the plus side if you owned the ground then you'd have decent returns on it BUT would the council sell something that they make money from?
Coleman was a very highly rated young manager who pundits and journalists alike could not believe lost the Fulham job.
Boothroyd had done an incredible job getting Watford promoted.
It's easy to see why they were appointed at the time. Nobody can judge how the future will pan out.
Prey tell us unenlightened ones - what was the plan, what was the budget? I do not know the inside information that you do so please tell us what they renaged on and the discrepancy in budgets that left Ranson duped? Also as we account for a miniscule percentage of SISU total accreditation I do not think their investors will lose much sleep, do you?
I suggest Hackney you worry about your new manager who i believe to be one of the most overrated in the division. I see since he left Hull they have flew up the table.
No inside info, just repeated statements from Ranson about the plan plus the actions to back it up.
Look, for 18 months we were a very well run club. We invested in sensible players with very few mistakes (only Eastwood comes to mind and there's an argument he's been mishandled rather than being an outright bad signing). We bought players with resale value for good prices. We built slowly and we had a commitment to the right kind of football.
Could some things have been better, especially in terms of fanbase building during the relative good times? Yes. Is that any different from every board weve have since Hill? No.
Things started going wrong at the end of Colemans first full season. SISU got £s in their eyes as clubs started sniffing round out players, this caused a rift a board level and undermined Coleman who was left having to build again rather than push on. This is all well documented by the way.
Before the end of Colemans second full season he was sacked and a new manager came in who started very well, had severe injury problems an again was faced with budget cuts at a crucial time. He got sacked and Thorn comes in and has a summer that makes Gadaffis look good and here we are.
The key mistakes were (as I see it):
- Cashing in on key players too early and not completing the squad building being attempted.
- Not making funds available at a key time when we were looking good for the play offs under Boothroyd.
- gutting the remnants of a team that finished just above the drop zone and expecting a rookie manager to cope.
None of these mistakes were Ransons. I for one (having never been anti-Ranson Hackers) would like to see him given a full three seasons to attempt his plan again.
When Abramovic walked into Chelsea they were millions in debt and losing thousands a week same with the Manchester City crowd, some owners don't give a stuff about inheriting debt it's chicken feed to them. The council won't sell the ground yet, Higgs charity trust will sell their half share, if the council allow them to, i should think Hoffman has already discussed that with our council top people, the leader John Mutton is a long term season ticket holder by the way. Sits right in front of me, i'll ask him Saturday.
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?