Okay, so I'm hoping the S word doesn't set everyones hair on fire in this forum and that this isn't a question mooted every 5 minutes by a new comer but:
SISU? Are you guys as polarized as I am about them? I just can't seem to make my mind up. Bear in mind, I'm including the current board in this sweeping generalisation that would make a Daily Mail journalist cry.
One minute they're our saviours and it's long live the King(s). The next it's pitchforks and fire. I suppose you have to remember they've sunk a lot of money into City and taken on quite a lot of debt. But then on the other hand it's selling Conor Thomas, Dann and Fox against (supposedly) better judgement.
So, what you think guys?
I've been on this subject from my first post on this board - in short:
SISU are the owners who placed a bet on the advice (businessplan, budget, cashflow forecast etc.) of Ray Ranson. Ranson ran the show for three years as chairman and acting CEO. His budget quickly failed and SISU had to put in more than they originally agreed to. Ransons last mistakes was not getting Westwood and Gunnar sold last summer to support the cashflow and eventually SISU kicked the breaks.
We need to understand that there is a clear hierarchy and work/responsibilities are divided down the ranks:
The owners put in money and wants a return on their investment. They don't need to know anything about the business - like if you buy a share in BT you don't actually need to know everything about their business. The owners rely on the board and management to secure the business.
The board oversees that the strategy is being followed and if not implements new actions/plans.
The management ... the CEO ... runs the business according to the strategies and the plans. If something fails, he is responsible for presenting alternatives.
Ranson was Chairman of the board as well as CEO. As long as everything is going well, this can work, but when something ... for example the cashflow ... is failing, then the double role becomes a problem: Shall the board keep trusting the CEO? Well if the CEO is chairman of the board, who's gonna make the decision?
To complicate things even more - Ranson was also a shareholder with almost 20% of the shares. So Ranson was not only Chairman and CEO, he was one of the owners as well.
This winter SISU ... did the only thing they could: They refused to inject more money. Ranson tried every trick in the book to keep the club sailing with a serious cash problem - but with little effect as we all know today.
When he finally gave up he was quickly eliminated from his three positions as owner, chairman and CEO.
Time to clean up the mess.
And this is what is happening at the moment. A new board, a new chairman and even a dedicated CEO has been installed.
Can properly agree with this. I just don't think it's a prudent way to run a club. Still, we could be Forest and have a Transfer Acquistions Oversight thingymajig (Read Supreme Politburo you do as we say) that causes a decent manager to leave.
I have gotta say though, since LB came along I've warmed a little to them. The guy seems pretty genuine. To the point where he takes a load of stick on that Twitter thingy at stupid o'clock in the morning. Hats off to Mr Brody.
You do realize that Brody is NOT part of SISU? He is a shareholder and a director, but noy part of SISU. He is one of the people SISU placed on the board to inject a more mordern management and Brody has taken it on his shoulder to communicate with the fans. A request we have had for years and one they have recognized and however difficult it is and will be, something they actually try to make work.
Glad they saved the club, I don't hate them but can't see the club going places while Sisu remain in charge.
Well, I think your post represent the vast majority of the fans. Nobody (well, beside me
) actually trust SISU, but I think it is all down to the misconception of what they actually do. Their sole responsibility towards this club is to make the necessary finances available. They have done that so far ... and I think they will continue to do that in the future. If not with new SISU investments, then with new investors bringing in fresh capital and hopefully new ideas and opportunities.
What they will do is make sure the board and management lives within the budgets and work towards balancing the books. Continuing to live beyond means is the shortest way to liquidation. So expect more focus on actually selling our stars for much need money. We cannot have a Westwood, King, Gunnasson situation one more time.
We can't deny that if we knew that they would sell key players and mess the fans around quite alot, we would still have them now because the club was going to be in some serious problems etc etc.
And the irony is that have Ranson managed to sell Westwood and Gunnarsson last summer, we would probably have balanced the books for last year. Ranson wouldn't have had to rely on more investments, there would have been relatively harmony on the board and he would probably still be chairman.
And before anyone says that would for sure have meant relegation - that is not 100% given. The mistrust and unrest at board and management level is just as much a killer as losing key players. Remember when the results started to fail on the field ... just before Christmas. Remember how eager Ranson and AB was to offload players and putting a pricetag on Westwood? Remember hao McIndoe was recalled from loan to make sure he wasn't injured and ready to get shipped to the first bidder?
And remember when the sun came back and we actually began to win a few matches?
No denying they have made some major mistakes over contract handling but you would hope they are learning and fast. I think having Brody on Twitter was a big PR gamble which has paid off - I joined Twitter just to keep up to date with his conversations and he seems like quite a nice guy - even had a bit of banter about Clingan and Juke with me and some other guy!
IMO the new board are streets ahead of the old one. They at least attempted to address the contract issues with Gunnar and King (and Westwood I guess but that was a lost cause before they were even here) and the sell-on clauses etc. can't be laid at their feet.
So I actually have a bit of faith in the new lot. Sure, there are still areas to improve, but you gotta start somewhere.
Fully agree!
