I think they may have been arranged at a time when it was thought that administration would go quicker that it actually did.
The delay in progress turned out to be effectively gagging TF!
imp:
Thing is I don't think that the SISU were interested in running a football club, that was not and has never been their goal IMO
To say no one knows is a weak argument. No one knows if Coleman had stayed we would not now be premier league champions.
However it was not 3 games but well over 60 and most of those were poor.
Sisu haven't no football experience hadn't a clue. Allowing the appointment of Coleman, a manager who achieved nothing was poor and Coleman bought Kean and thorn with him.
Duliue was so out of his depth at Southampton they at one point were trying to get Rupert Lowe back. So to recruit him was nonsense
Thorn was the worst though but fans backed him so he had it easy and with no pressure on him there was no need to replace him. We must have been the only set of fans debating who was the best scout ever. Looking at the latest shamboloc recruits another myth has gone.
Thorn will not get another job in management. He was alst like that con artist who manage to dupe Southampton in letting him play in a game. Problem is we let the deception carry on and we let go for far top long. All this emotion directed at not going to games should have been directed at the real issue two seasons ago.
I actually don't understand the question.
If an investment company mismanages a person's investment.
They become vulnerable to legal action by the investor who has entrusted them with their investment.
The question is whether some of the factors on here could be evidenced and some of the glaring mistakes be used by the investor as evidence that SISU have mismanaged their investment.
For example when they did not negotiate certain things when they first bid for the club.
Employing Ken, him rejecting that takeover over.
Signing the accounts then turning round and saying they are a mess and always have been.
Making strategic decisions that had led to the club been homeless in league one.
Employing people who led to the club getting relegated.
Have they made good business decisions that went wrong due to uncontrollable external factors.
Or
Have they just messed it all up and mismanaged someone else's investment?
I do wonder just how much more punishment their investors are prepared to take. They must have very steep pockets or be very stupid if they think giving Tim £30m to build a stadium on top of all they have given to prop up losses will boost their chances of a return.
Funny how other people who dont agree with you blatantly ignore things but you? You don't so explain to me the debt that the Club has had put into it and iI use the words carefully explain what proportion of that is due to the rent. Then take a minute to explain to me just why 6 or 7 thousand less fans are attending matches. While you are at it explain to met if the F+B is so important that last season half the bars were closed if it was so important why did they not buy the Higgs 50% when they bought the club when they could have. Also these fina ncial geniuses now say they made mistakes due dilligence being one of them how come this for example didn t come till 5 years into their tenure why? If their idea was to buy and sell at a profit did they not see us slipping into relegation if not were they blind? then when we look like were going to be relegated the rent becomes the major issue even though as stated a two thirds reduction is offered plus access to F+B."Can't see past the rent". That was the catalyst of all our problems. The previous board tried to get a reduction. SISU have fucked things up, no argument, but there are other factors which you and others blatantly ignore and always will.
I would be seeking legal advice if it were me over how my money seems to have been mismanaged over the last 6 and a half years
I definitely fail to see how they are justifying any of this to those they are legally accountable towards. The Otium deal on paper wipes Limited's debt but makes zero difference in terms of the debt of the whole group to the SISU funds-we don't know what any of the other parties offered but it would likely have involved cash to go towards SISU stakehoders. Why reject the latter? Can only think that accepting anything less than a 100% return would crystallise a loss whereas currently no loss has officially been made.
Investments may go down as well as up....
...Your club may be at risk if you do not keep up with repayments on mortgages or other loans secured against it....
"Can't see past the rent". That was the catalyst of all our problems. The previous board tried to get a reduction. SISU have fecked things up, no argument, but there are other factors which you and others blatantly ignore and always will.
You're full of shit. Not once did you mention the rent when we were in the championship. You just jumped on the fisher/sisu rent bandwagon.
You have got your wishI'm full of shit and you're a racist. I think I'd rather be full of shit.
Yes it is the second time now they have served an offer that promises them a share of future profits based on success.
I assume they have promised their investors a full return on exit or they are in trouble hence the crazy decision making.
You have got your wish
I'm full of shit and you're a racist. I think I'd rather be full of shit.
I'm full of shit and you're a racist. I think I'd rather be full of shit.
Yes remember dont throw stones"Glass houses" springs to mind.
its never good when the race card is pulled (shits about to get real)
Yes remember dont throw stones
Racists aren't very nice people.
Must be a temptation my advice put them downI'll try not to.
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?