Sisu (1 Viewer)

[ashbyjan]

SB - for many its simply SISU are the forces of evil and Hoffman is the shining saviour. Also many forget Hoffman was on the board for 3 years during SISU's reign and it was allegedly he who talked Ranson out of resigning several times. This club has been mismanaged for decades and SISU are just the latest culprits. However their major crime isn't financial irresponsibility and self interest like previous regimes but simply niaivety in hiring incompetent managers and not supervising them closely enough - how the hell has Onye kept a job is one question I would love an answer to.

 

---

[Colonel Mustard]

It makes me laugh that some people are desperate for Hoffman to takeover, despite the fact that he has already hinted that Ranson could be involved......how can they ignore the way in which Ranson used the club?

I struggle to see what RR did that was so wrong.

RR implemented a reasonably strong strategy: buy high-ceiling youngsters on the way up (then sell and reinvest, making the club somewhat self-sufficient); upgrade Ryton (maximising one of our few assets; bolstering training and increasing attraction of the club to players); spending a good deal of money on the best manager he could get.

He might have drawn a large salary, but that was signed-off and paid for by SISU. Chris Coleman may have turned out to be completely the wrong choice, but it doesn't alter the principle being correct i.e. being prepared to pay big for a well-regarded manager.

 

[oldskyblue58]

think the principle only works if we had the finance to do it in the first place colonel. We never did have from what i can see. Somehow the finances seem to have been divorced from the player dealings under RR.

Like you say it is a decent plan but we were not in a position to take advantage of it. So the choice of plan be it by RR or SISU was wrong in my opinion.

Dont think anyone should say it was all down to RR or SISU though..... it is rarely so simple

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

If you were Sisu and followed OSB's analysis you could draw only one conclusion and that is that it would be a waste of money to throw good after bad.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

think the principle only works if we had the finance to do it in the first place colonel. We never did have from what i can see. Somehow the finances seem to have been divorced from the player dealings under RR.

I would certainly agree with that. It then raises the question of why SISU would sanction such a plan if the money wasn't there. I wouldn't write off the impact of the financial crisis; investors across the globe called in/sat on their money, and it coincided perfectly with the change in direction for CCFC.

Dont think anyone should say it was all down to RR or SISU though..... it is rarely so simple

Never is, OSB. There is plenty of responsibility to be shared around, from fans and ownership through to football's governing bodies.

 

[Stevec189]

I struggle to see what RR did that was so wrong.

RR implemented a reasonably strong strategy: buy high-ceiling youngsters on the way up (then sell and reinvest, making the club somewhat self-sufficient); upgrade Ryton (maximising one of our few assets; bolstering training and increasing attraction of the club to players); spending a good deal of money on the best manager he could get.

He might have drawn a large salary, but that was signed-off and paid for by SISU. Chris Coleman may have turned out to be completely the wrong choice, but it doesn't alter the principle being correct i.e. being prepared to pay big for a well-regarded manager.

This is only a good model if it delivers success and promotion or increased revenue. you cannot continue to spend more than you earn. As OSB states very eloquently that way lies disaster. How long before Abronovich becomes bored with Chelski? it will happen and then they will sunk!


I do think Ranson offered SISU a relatively quick return on their money by getting into the Premiership. When it was clear this was never going to happen and things were spiralling out of control they stepped in. PUSB!

 

[EleanorRigby]

There's one important thing that everyone seems to miss, SISU said, well i think it was Paul Clouting to be precise that SISU will only fund until the end of the season and there were no guarantees about anything different.to that. Players were sold to help pay our way until the seasons end. At this moment in time we have submitted no accounts to the Football League to show our financial commitment for next season, hence the transfer embargo. That does put this club in danger of it's very existence, especially now as we can't sell anyone to fund the months ahead. Any funding will have to come direct from SISU. My concern is how long are they going to tolerate that and just might put a more sinister reason for the lady bosses sudden visit.

 

[Grendel]

There's one important thing that everyone seems to miss, SISU said, well i think it was Paul Clouting to be precise that SISU will only fund until the end of the season and there were no guarantees about anything different.to that. Players were sold to pay for that. At this moment in time we have submitted no accounts to the Football League to show our financial commitment for next season, hence the transfer embargo. That does put this club in danger of it's very existence, especially now as we can't sell anyone to fund the months ahead. Any funding will have to come direct from SISU. My concern is how long are they going to wear that and just might put a more sinister reason for the bosses sudden visit.

Why would that make a visit sinister, you can shut it down by e-mail if you want. All organisations need budget approval for a new financial year.

 

[EleanorRigby]

SISU can close any of it's subsideries at any time. And i am certain will have done so before, once they have had their pound of flesh that's what they do. As for her ladyships flying visit who really knows why she turned up unannounced, but it will certainly be for a reason and not to watch her beloved Sky Blues, lets just hope it was what i think most fans wish for and that is to initiate selling up. I just worry that SISU who are a ruthless organisation don't just pull the plug and anyone who thinks they won't need to think again.

 

[Grendel]

SISU can close any of it's subsideries at any time. And i am certain will have done so before, once they have had their pound of flesh that's what they do. As for her ladyships flying visit who really knows why she turned up unannounced, but it will certainly be for a reason and not to watch her beloved Sky Blues, lets just hope it was what i think most fans wish for and that is to initiate selling up. I just worry that SISU who are a ruthless organisation don't just pull the plug and anyone who thinks they won't need to think again.

They can't. It's a separate PLC so they would have to put the club into administration first. They are hardly ruthless look at some other hedge funds like Alchemy and see how they deal with loss making arms of their company. For a hedge fund this season they have performed with credit.

 

[EleanorRigby]

If Coventry City are a seperate PLC where can i buy any shares, what is there value and when is the next A.G.M. As for their so-called credable performance this season as you put it, it isn't this season that is the concern, it's their lack of commitment for next season thats a worry.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

In 87 seasons in the league, this club has managed 15 top 6 finishes in all divisions-whoever wants to turn that around has a gigantic job on their hands with or without a potful of cash.

 

[Paxman II]

So the conclusion to be drawn is....?

As I said earlier don't knock it and be careful what you wish for.

OSB has clarified it in more detail which is really drawing the conclusion that SISU are now acting for the good of themselves which in turn of course is for the good of the club. Time will tell if it's worthwhile....and for now it has to be for them as there is no other choice until the knight or knights in shining Armour arrive at the door and frankly that's clearly unlikely at the present time.

 

[Astute]

So the conclusion to be drawn is....?

As I said earlier don't knock it and be careful what you wish for.

OSB has clarified it in more detail which is really drawing the conclusion that SISU are now acting for the good of themselves which in turn of course is for the good of the club. Time will tell if it's worthwhile....and for now it has to be for them as there is no other choice until the knight or knights in shining Armour arrive at the door and frankly that's clearly unlikely at the present time.

Don't times change. When I was saying the same thing months ago I was either a SISU lover or even part of SISU myself. I eventually saw the light. I saw what they were doing to my club. I was about the last one on here to come to my senses. Now it looks like others are losing theirs.

Yes we need to sell players to keep afloat, but we need replacements. Don't matter too much if it is loans or end of contract players, but we can't have another season playing inexperienced youngsters like this one again. What will happen if we lose our 1st team at the end of the season again?

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

SISU can close any of it's subsideries at any time. And i am certain will have done so before, once they have had their pound of flesh that's what they do. As for her ladyships flying visit who really knows why she turned up unannounced, but it will certainly be for a reason and not to watch her beloved Sky Blues, lets just hope it was what i think most fans wish for and that is to initiate selling up. I just worry that SISU who are a ruthless organisation don't just pull the plug and anyone who thinks they won't need to think again.

Yes.

and CCFC is not a plc it is a private company.

 

[Grendel]

If Coventry City are a seperate PLC where can i buy any shares, what is there value and when is the next A.G.M. As for their so-called credable performance this season as you put it, it isn't this season that is the concern, it's their lack of commitment for next season thats a worry.

We are a Private Limited Company. I believe that there are circa 2,000 shares. Some of these used to be in the hands of local people, hence the need for an A.G.M. I seem to recall a certain local businessman with his friend Mr Ranson persuading people to give them to SISU so all our Christmases can come and once. Don't you remember?

 

[LeamingtonBootBoy]

I am coming around to the view that Sisu could be the clubs' best owners for some considerable time. They understand that a business has to live within its means and are doing all they can to bring this about at CCFC. We have recently seen one major club on the brink of liquidation due to the irresponsible way in which it has been run over the last few years and there will no doubt be others in the near future. I suspect that all clubs will shortly have to face this fact and perhaps therefore we will have a head start upon them.

I totally understand what Tony is saying...and if you listened to the debate on Rangers last night on 5 live, you would have heard fans and pundits giving a similar message throughout.

Who wants to be owned by tossers like SISU? However, if football is to be run like a business as we are constantly told, then surely that has to apply to all aspects of the club, from boardroom, players, salaries, commercial activities, fees paid etc...as well as the only aspect currently employed by nearly all clubs....fleecing the loyal fans.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I listened to that debate also LBB, thought it was very good. I think there is the beginnings of a ground swell of football fan opinion against the irresponsible owners. However I also feel there is a need for fans to understand what goes on in running a club better and to temper their expectations.

Some people should never be within a million miles of managing a clubs finances - why the SPL couldnt or simply didnt check out Craig Whyte at Rangers properly beggars belief.

one thing that i didnt think was clear was the definition of debt. The discussion seemed to restrict that to the bank & HMRC debts but anyone putting money into a club puts it in as a loan generally and somehow that isnt seen by many as a debt - but it is.

It was also interesting that they do not have a football creditors rule in Scotland. The general opinion was that it made a deal with HMRC more likely by not having it. Where as the same situation in England would see HMRC challenge any CVA to come out of administration because of the football creditors rule we have.

I couldnt believe how toothless the SPL etc were though - an ex member of the committee said they had never discussed the subject of club ownership and proper owners.

We need football authorities that act in the best interests of the game in this country - that isnt necessarily the same as acting in the best interests of a particular club or individual. Until we have proper governance and a will to see that through with proper powers and control then nothing will change.

 

[oldskyblue58]

btw PLC does not mean that a company is quoted on a stock market - it would also not necessarily mean you could buy any of the shares at all ER. (company house definitions can be found here http://www.companies-house.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gp1.shtml#ch3 )

If CCFC were a PLC I suspect the only difference would be that it would have issued shares of at least 50000 all in the hands of the current shareholders.

 

[Jack Griffin]

If Coventry City are a seperate PLC where can i buy any shares, what is there value and when is the next A.G.M. As for their so-called credable performance this season as you put it, it isn't this season that is the concern, it's their lack of commitment for next season thats a worry.

It isn't a PUBLIC limited company, it is a LIMITED liability company. Shares for it have never been on the stock market.

Even Man Utd is no longer on the stock market these days, the Glazers delisted it. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/man-united-shares-delist-7180716.html

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Why would that make a visit sinister, you can shut it down by e-mail if you want. All organisations need budget approval for a new financial year.

It's true that a budget approval process is a fairly standard part of corporate life.

What are not standard parts of corporate life are :

1) Public comments that the funding of a company is not guaranteed beyond a point in the near future and
2) Inability to file accounts within the prescribed timetable.

 

[oldskyblue58]

to be fair DTD the owners never guaranteed any funds ......... what SISU/investors have done is provide a written to undertaking that indicates their "intention to provide or source financial support as it is expected to be required by the group for its continued operation for a period of no less than one year from the date of approval of the financial statements"

The 2010 accounts also make it clear that positive cash flows from player dealings formed a major part of the budgets they put together as well as raising further debt and equity.

That isnt actually a guarantee of anything in the way people seem to understand it and there is no actual finite date for termination of any intention to continue to support.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

to be fair DTD the owners never guaranteed any funds ......... what SISU/investors have done is provide a written to undertaking that indicates their "intention to provide or source financial support as it is expected to be required by the group for its continued operation for a period of no less than one year from the date of approval of the financial statements"

The 2010 accounts also make it clear that positive cash flows from player dealings formed a major part of the budgets they put together as well as raising further debt and equity.

That isnt actually a guarantee of anything in the way people seem to understand it and there is no actual finite date for termination of any intention to continue to support.

I accept that.

However many businesses need funding from parent entities and/or the renewal of bank facilities, but seem to manage to achieve this without failing to file their accounts etc.

When a business is in the financial position of CCFC (and particularly when it's a high profile business) the fact that the owner/funder previously "guaranteed" funding up to a date but has not renewed any such "guarantee" (to the extent of missiong legal filing deadlines) can only generate negative publicity and increased uncertainty.

What I don't understand is that SISU have publicly stated (several times) that they are not interested in selling the club. That must mean that they intend to run it long term (unless they plan to liquidate it to spite everyone??????), so why not put the necessary "guarantees" in place.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I accept that.

However many businesses need funding from parent entities and/or the renewal of bank facilities, but seem to manage to achieve this without failing to file their accounts etc.

When a business is in the financial position of CCFC (and particularly when it's a high profile business) the fact that the owner/funder previously "guaranteed" funding up to a date but has not renewed any such "guarantee" (to the extent of missiong legal filing deadlines) can only generate negative publicity and increased uncertainty.

What I don't understand is that SISU have publicly stated (several times) that they are not interested in selling the club. That must mean that they intend to run it long term (unless they plan to liquidate it to spite everyone??????), so why not put the necessary "guarantees" in place.

I agree DTD - failure to file seems to be the norm at CCFC but other companies face the same problems in getting cashflows done and still file on time. It is not a good advert for a well run business is it.

I think the reason they dont put a formal guarantee in place is that it increases risk to the investors, and takes pressure off the Board to run a tight ship. Only guarantee they could give is an open ended one that covers all cash shortfalls, which would increase risk to the investors who would be obliged to stump up cash. As it stands they can choose whether or not to put in further cash. There are no other major creditors apparently that require guarantees, it is mainly owed to SISU investors. Also they are trying to make the business live within its means ie not rely on the investors to bail it out. A formal guarantee would weaken that resolve.

Current situation is just an intention not a guarantee of any sort. If you think about it though they have to support the business or lose £30m +........... "hobsons choice"

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

I agree with most of what OSB has written. They have either to continue to support by feeding the cash flow to protect their £30+m or they have to draw a line and say so much and no more. If they were to do that it would not be out of spite (DTD) but because they have no longer got the appetite for monthly calls on them for yet more money. The £30+m just grows and grows. They are about to enter a three month period with almost no income at all, just outgoings. Their only possibility of income is from player sales...
I am really afraid that at some point the investors in Sisu will pull the plug.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I think we're all saying pretty much the same thing.

However, WSCP I'm not sure that the £30m+ can be protected.

All that it is now, is an interesting historical fact. I don't know how SISU do their book-keeping, but I would be amazed if there isn't a very hefty provision in their books against its recoverability. Similarly, I can't believe that there is anyone on the planet who believes that CCFC is worth £30m+. (If there is, could they please write to me as I have a number of investment schemes that I'm sure they'd be interested in ).

Also my comment about liquidating the club out of spite was rather tongue in cheek, but if as you say they may no longer have the appetite for "monthly calls on them for yet more money", how do you explain their repeated statements that they are not interested in selling. Surely in those circumstances you'd be looking to sell for something (indeed for anything....), to mitigate your losses?

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

Absolutely, but it would seem that there isn't a buyer. I just wonder who would buy the club at this time. How much just to get to the start of the season? And what assets? Ryton and the player contracts (or are they liabilities?). Maybe if Sisu get to the end of their patience and pull the plug someone will come out of the shadows and pitch something.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Also my comment about liquidating the club out of spite was rather tongue in cheek, but if as you say they may no longer have the appetite for "monthly calls on them for yet more money", how do you explain their repeated statements that they are not interested in selling. Surely in those circumstances you'd be looking to sell for something (indeed for anything....), to mitigate your losses?

Of course they are interested in selling, but they are trying to make the club self finanching first, then they wait for the right price.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Of course they are interested in selling, but they are trying to make the club self finanching first, then they wait for the right price.

So if that's the plan, why increase the uncertainty around the club by not confirming that they're going to support it over the next 12 months?

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

I am not sure that I quite understand JG's argument: they will carry on putting money in whilst trying to bring the costs down to a point where someone will buy a more or less going concern is that it?

 

[georgehudson]

my personal view is that whenever they accept a financial exit strategy, the will be regarded as THE WORST owners of this club, whoever they are,
suitable untruth's & the crass inability to communicate only add up to this,
they care 0 for CCFC,
anyone who wishes to back/support/enthuse over them needs a wake up call,
there is a fine line between prudence & speculation,
all CCFC have been treated to is miserly strangulation,
does that give hope to our fans ?
is that positive ?
an invisible set of owners is totally destructive, further the kindergarten attempts at media contacts are nothing more than an absolute farce,
as a CCFC / SKY BLUE (they weren't 'sky blue' when i first started following them) fan,
i am so very, very, sad that i have to witness this apparent deconstruction of OUR club,
i would willingly work towards US going forwards,
all i experience is our controllers/owners in reverse gear,
PUSB

 

[Tonylinc]

My original post was done, "tongue in cheek" whilst doning a tin hat. However, the more I think about it (and having read the various comments) the more I am convinced that Sisu are doing the right things. Yes, they could and should have been more honest from the outset but I think that they were duped by RR and since then have appionted people who were never able to deliver on their promises (ie. Idiots).

PS. I vote for OSB as Chairman.

 

[EleanorRigby]

My original post was done, "tongue in cheek" whilst doning a tin hat. However, the more I think about it (and having read the various comments) the more I am convinced that Sisu are doing the right things. Yes, they could and should have been more honest from the outset but I think that they were duped by RR and since then have appionted people who were never able to deliver on their promises (ie. Idiots).

PS. I vote for OSB as Chairman.

What rubbish !!

 

[Grendel]

What rubbish !!

It's true of course they were duped by Ranson. He craved for a club with his investors in toe. How can you question that logic?

 

[dongonzalos]

True but they were purchased by a now deceased billionaire. Our "saviors" seem to be Garry hoffman (ex board member with sisu and no money to invest), mr Coventry and the sexist Neanderthal at talk sport. I would make a quip about which is the good, bad and ugly but is any of it good really?

..........