The Orange One Speaks (1 Viewer)

[Bennets Afro]

How grateful we should be for this saviour

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2051070/Coventry-City-The-solution-financial-woe-Kissing-frogs.html

Interesting point for me "in my spare time I'm tryin to find investment"

Shouldn't you be doing that as part of your full time job of being chairman

Ken everyone hates you as much as SISU

 

---

[stay_up_skyblues]

I like how McPake, Bell and Baker signing 3 year deals has seen our assetts increase by millions. We'd be lucky to get 1m for all three in one transaction.

 

[stevo_ccfc]

Interestingly he did say that they aren't talking to Hoffman until he has proof of funds so unless something has changed it doesn't look like there is to be a takeover any time soon

 

[ajsccfc]

How old is that photo of him? I'm guessing 1985.

 

[PhilWasn'tBabb]

Interestingly he did say that they aren't talking to Hoffman until he has proof of funds so unless something has changed it doesn't look like there is to be a takeover any time soon

In less there is somebody else interested ?:thinking about:

 

[Deleted member 2526]

Absolute bollocks.
I love how he thinks the fans just hate SISU alone....WE HATE YOU TOO KEN!!

 

[hamil99]

Hate how he says are teams better this season then last....really ken, do u really think we are that stupid....

 

[Godiva]

It's for once a good interview and for most part he confirms almost everything written in the three FAQ threads at the top of this forum.

For all who have been calling for some transparancy from the board please read the interview carefully and with an open mind. It does clearly give you some answers to many questions put in various posts on the forum.

I especially note that he confirms the operation losses are down significantly this season and that they are edging closer to get investors to enable a purchase of the stadium.

 

[Bennets Afro]

He mentions that operating losses are down 40%, but then goes onto say that people won't invest in a team losing 500k a month.

More contradictions!!!!

 

[wingy]

The losses still running at £.5m per month ,better sqad ,player contracts, all designed to stifle deter potential competitors ,creative asset accounting.its the old carrot and rod approach ,if you lot wer'nt so hard on us ,we could invest more ,the fact the only investment coming is from player sales mortgaging ticket sales is obviously beneficial to our longterm survival ,more posturing hardball .

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Utter tripe, the whole thing. So many contradictions and complete spin. My concern is..do we assume that the recent takeover specualtion was nothing after all? 'Cos I really can't take the idea of being owned by SISU beyond January.

 

[georgehudson]

an article loaded with both bizarre & peculiar statements (no surprise there),

now losing 8-10m per year ? (previously didn't they quote 4m),

cut the costs by 40% ? (well that contradicts the above),

increased the value of the squad by about 40% ? (oh really ?),

'GH has been in the media more than AT & the players put together' ? (what !),

in the words of john mcenroe - 'you cannot be serious'

 

[wingy]

Utter tripe, the whole thing. So many contradictions and complete spin. My concern is..do we assume that the recent takeover specualtion was nothing after all? 'Cos I really can't take the idea of being owned by SISU beyond January.

Don't assume that NLHWC ,more a response to it ,loose lips again ,we need to keep it low profile ,less speculation on here ,sorry i know we're all keen as mustard ,but keep shush.

 

[Astute]

So previously we were losing about 5m a year. Our losses are now reduced by 40%. This means our losses are now down to 6m a year :thinking about:

They either gave bullshit that our losses were 5m a year to start with, they miscalculated by a long way or now bullshitting that our losses are now 6m a year.

If our losses are now 3m a year, which 5m minus 40% is, where would they get benefit from saying our losses are much higher other than part of a SISU as a whole company tax dodge of some sort. The higher our losses the less people will want to invest. The more I think about it the dodgier it seems.

 

[Godiva]

So previously we were losing about 5m a year. Our losses are now reduced by 40%. This means our losses are now down to 6m a year :thinking about:

They either gave bullshit that our losses were 5m a year to start with, they miscalculated by a long way or now bullshitting that our losses are now 6m a year.

If our losses are now 3m a year, which 5m minus 40% is, where would they get benefit from saying our losses are much higher other than part of a SISU as a whole company tax dodge of some sort. The higher our losses the less people will want to invest. The more I think about it the dodgier it seems.

It's from an interview ... he answers different questions. Previous losses were around £6m now he 'like to think' (as in he can't be sure until the auditors have been over the books next year) the losses are 40% less.

The 40% less operation costs are much in line with OSB's and my calculations stated in the FAQ's. Remove the non-cash items and you will find the club is pretty close to break-even cashflow wise. A player sold in January should make sure the owners won't have to dig into their pockets for another year.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Don't assume that NLHWC ,more a response to it ,loose lips again ,we need to keep it low profile ,less speculation on here ,sorry i know we're all keen as mustard ,but keep shush.

God sarn it, now I don't know what to think. All I can say is, if anyone really knows what is going on but doesn't want it plastered all over the forum, could you PM me a bit of info? I can keep a secret, I won't tell anyone, promise

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

So previously we were losing about 5m a year. Our losses are now reduced by 40%. This means our losses are now down to 6m a year :thinking about:

They either gave bullshit that our losses were 5m a year to start with, they miscalculated by a long way or now bullshitting that our losses are now 6m a year.

If our losses are now 3m a year, which 5m minus 40% is, where would they get benefit from saying our losses are much higher other than part of a SISU as a whole company tax dodge of some sort. The higher our losses the less people will want to invest. The more I think about it the dodgier it seems.

Good math! Better than Ken's . That's very...astute of you :claping hands:

The truth may well be stranger than any fiction.

 

[shmmeee]

OK, read through the thread first, and expected a completely different article to the one I read. Where are these contradictions? Where does he say we're losing £500k/month?

Seems a reasonable and level headed appraisal of our current situation at the moment, with some cautious optimism (lots of ifs and buts, but there would be if everything you said was recorded to be wheeled out as "a lie!" if it hasn't come true in 2 months).

Also, Astute, that's really NOT good maths. You are assuming an instant reduction at the end of last financial year for our losses, when it obviously would have happened over a period of time. It's nothing like as simple as taking 40% of last years losses.
I hate the situation our club is in, I hate the fact that we look like going down this season. But the fact of the matter is that if we stay up, you have a very good case for saying SISU have done the right thing by cutting the budget. It's a hell of a risk though.