What is the sisu masterplan (1 Viewer)

wingy · Sep 9, 2011

What with their reputation for playing hardball, just wondered if they may take us to the precipise,with the intention of putting pressure on all the other stakeholders,ie:-A.C.L,Higgs,Council,with pressure on these coming from other stakeholders,Compass group,sponsors etc,not withstanding the fans,there was a small campaign involving around 80 against the council prior to the takeover. Would the prospect of admin,liquidation,set the alarm bells ringing enough to gain favour with the apparently reluctant parties involved to buckle and recognise that without the club as the fulcrum,the entire complex is kind of useless.In all my readings of this organisation,it seems their standout feature is their brinkmanship.With their 30 million losses to now ,seemingly impossible to recoup,what a gain the stadium would represent if this domsday scenario evolved.Before everyone says what about the football,they know they cant affect much,there is no investment available for that side,i would imagine it would be forthcoming for the real estate.This is about exit strategy, not running a football club.:thinking about:

chiefdave · Sep 9, 2011

i can't see there being much public support to protest on SISUs behalf to get the council to hand the stadium over to them and even if they wanted to I don't think the council can legally do it.

I think SISU have the impression that if they can make the club break even they can sell it on at a price that recovers all their 'investment' however I don't think this is going to happen. Even if we do break even this year who is going to want to pay in the region of £30m for the club. At some point I feel they will have to take a hit but its a case of how long it will take them to realise this and how much of a hit they are willing to take.

Il Pirata · Sep 9, 2011

Stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap.

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 9, 2011

Well put chiefdave. Pretty much how I see it. I assume the vision is to make us a lean, mean, saleable machine. But surely the likelehood of them ever making money back-or indeed making us a break-even business-will only be hindered by relegation? Unless the logic is that it's cheaper to run a lower league club.

oldskyblue58 · Sep 9, 2011

or they get the club to a profit situation and start charging interest on the loans so that they get some return for the investment funds. Which might buy time to improve saleability further

shmmeee · Sep 9, 2011

The thing is the biggest reason not to buy the club isn't the debt, it's the monthly losses. People forget that a 2nd tier club has intrinsic value in and of itself. Being potentially one season from the Prem is worth a lot.

If SISU can get the club into a position where a new owner is starting at square one and still cover the repayments on SISU's loan then I can see a significant amount of people being interested.

So to answer OP: I think SISU's plan is to get the club to live within it's means then look for a buyer.

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 9, 2011

oldskyblue58 said:
or they get the club to a profit situation and start charging interest on the loans so that they get some return for the investment funds. Which might buy time to improve saleability further

Man that is a depressing thought. I thought it couldn't get much worse, but they could have our balls in a vice like that for years. Although the whole point of companies like SISU is to get in and out with a quick profit..a long drawn out drip-feed isn't really their way of making money. Don't think gates would be bringing much in under that scenario, either.

That said, when you hear the numbers we're losing each month (given the players who have left the wage bill), and you do wonder if there is interest in place already.

Godiva · Sep 9, 2011

oldskyblue58 said:
or they get the club to a profit situation and start charging interest on the loans so that they get some return for the investment funds. Which might buy time to improve saleability further

Nonleagueherewecome said:
Man that is a depressing thought. I thought it couldn't get much worse, but they could have our balls in a vice like that for years. Although the whole point of companies like SISU is to get in and out with a quick profit..a long drawn out drip-feed isn't really their way of making money. Don't think gates would be bringing much in under that scenario, either.

That said, when you hear the numbers we're losing each month (given the players who have left the wage bill), and you do wonder if there is interest in place already.

Why would it be depressing if the investors got some return on their investments? If the club gets to a stage with profit, then surely nobody could argue if they started charging interests. After all - interests is actually the price of money.

How about the other employees at the club. Shouldn't they get paid either. The manager, should he work for free? Or the players, should they play for nothing?

As it is at the moment the money that keeps us alive is working for free. And the board members (at least up till the last accounts) works for free.
Would you go to work for free?

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 9, 2011

WOW, so you actually want SISU to be making money whilst we slide down the divisions now? Incredible.

Godiva · Sep 9, 2011

If we slide down the divisions as you say then the investors will never make any money. If the club starts to make a profit it will only be in this division or the one above. In that case the investors have turned the club around, stopped the bleeding and put it in a better condition than it was at take over. In that event I would be happy if the investors actually got something in return. Yes, Incredible! Isn't it?

oldskyblue58 · Sep 9, 2011

I think nonleagueherewecome every one assumes there is one end game and there are no options for SISU. Really just making the point that there are indeed other options. Am expecting that 2 to 5 years from now SISU will be gone. I really dont think it will happen before then - but you never know

Gaz · Sep 9, 2011

Well let's all hope they do bugger off long before 2-5 years.

Yesterday would be ideal.

wingy · Sep 9, 2011

But none of the above posts make refference to stadium ownership,which should have been the priority from move in,to rescue the football club from forever failing.Blaming all previous regimes for the lack of ownership is pointless ,its about getting there.Just buying the Higgs option at a fixed rate passes in a season or two . While sisu do the turnaround that option may pass ,where Hoffman claimed to have funding for it,may even have been stadium. So if sisu don't have ambition for it ,maybe Hoffman should be preferred,the fact they batted him away so hard makes me wonder:thinking about:

Tonylinc · Sep 9, 2011

Sisu told us, almost from the outset, that they intended buying into the Ricoh. They repeated this several times BUT nothing happened. They then told us that meetings had been set up with the Council to discuss the matter BUT nothing happened. The Council later told us that NO such meetings had been arranged. Now, I am an avid supporter of my beloved Coventry and would want the club to have an interest in the place which they call home BUT would not want these lying scumbags to get any part of the Ricoh. Should they do so I think that it would complicate and force up the the price which any future owner would have to pay and I want this load of s..t out of my club as soon as possible.

sky blue john · Sep 9, 2011

oldskyblue58 said:
or they get the club to a profit situation and start charging interest on the loans so that they get some return for the investment funds. Which might buy time to improve saleability further

Out of the 30million they claim to be owed could some of that be calculated interest ?

Tonylinc · Sep 9, 2011

This 30million is nothing more than a smoke screen. The club may well have been that amount in debt prior to Sisu coming in but they did not pay it off. They simply re-arranged the payments. Yes, they have been paying it BUT how much have they got back from sales?

georgehudson · Sep 9, 2011

Opportunity (by sisu) missed again, their PR is about as much use as a one-legged man in an a*se kicking contest.
It's all gone quiet over there !
All of this positive and investigative chat, by SKY BLUE FANS, must have somewhat confused the sisu fraternity, no news from KD, no blase double talk from OI.
Silence speaks volumes from them.
Come on you SKY BLUES let's collectively find a way to remove these leeches from OUR club.
We need football players, we need a squad, capable of existing in this division, to challenge for the 'top tier', & whilst we need to adhere to reasonable financial constraints, we want the people of COVENTRY to be with us !

PUSB

Godiva · Sep 10, 2011

Tonylinc said:
This 30million is nothing more than a smoke screen. The club may well have been that amount in debt prior to Sisu coming in but they did not pay it off. They simply re-arranged the payments. Yes, they have been paying it BUT how much have they got back from sales?

As explained by OldSkyBlue58 i FAQ 2:
The liabilities were at takeover written down from £43 million to £8 million. So the original creditors took a hit of £35 million.
The looses from takeover to 31/5/2008 were £3 million funded by SISU, so at that point the debts were £11 million.
At 31/5/2009 the debts (SISU loans) were increased to £23.4 million - an increase of £12.4.
At 31/5/2010 the debts were increased by another £700K.

This shows that the debts were not simply rearranged.
The last accounts are more than a year old, the debts have increased even more since.

Godiva · Sep 10, 2011

sky blue john said:
Out of the 30million they claim to be owed could some of that be calculated interest ?

The accounts show no signs of the club paying interest on the SISU loans. It may have changed since 31/5/2010 but I doubt they will charge interests untill the club starts to make a profit.

Lord_Nampil · Sep 10, 2011

One part of there plan seems to be players on longer contracts! Since may alot of young players have been given 2-3 yr contracts instead of 1, all
New signings have 3 yr contracts ! I can see they want to make sure they have players tied down, and I am guessing if a player doesn't sign a contract by jan, then they will be sold in that window! Any money made will be put into Thorns kitty to bring in players with in. I for one haven't got a problem with that, I just wish we had started to do it earlier in pre season!!

Other than that I don't no the rest of there goal and aims, it would help if we did have some, and I am hoping they put down some in the coming weeks!

oldskyblue58 · Sep 10, 2011

what puzzles me on the contracts is that we give mcpake and bell longer contracts (both on the fringe of things) yest someone like Crainie there is no movement. Can see why some players like Eastwood offered nothing but I would have thought others stood out for extended terms

Astute · Sep 10, 2011

The plan seems to have been to get the expenses down to a decent level. This must be close to where they want it. The only problem is that revenues are down due to poor results. It was never going to be a quick turn round from where we were. Now hopefully we will strengthen the team through youth players coming through and signing some younger players, not players looking for their last payday. Get them on 3 year or longer contracts. Also some good loans will be available in next few weeks as squads settle down in the Prem. We will be worth more in the prem so this must be their aim. They would then make lots of cash out of us then even if they did not sell. They will want promotion just as much as we do.

wingy · Sep 10, 2011

Astute said:
The plan seems to have been to get the expenses down to a decent level. This must be close to where they want it. The only problem is that revenues are down due to poor results. It was never going to be a quick turn round from where we were. Now hopefully we will strengthen the team through youth players coming through and signing some younger players, not players looking for their last payday. Get them on 3 year or longer contracts. Also some good loans will be available in next few weeks as squads settle down in the Prem. We will be worth more in the prem so this must be their aim. They would then make lots of cash out of us then even if they did not sell. They will want promotion just as much as we do.

Goodpoints Astute, Just think that securing the stadium and the streams from it would safe guard the club longterm,god knows where the finance would come from,imay be wrong but currently i dont see the council are likely to deal with them.we've tried the promotion route through Fletcher and Ransom,seem to have blown sixty -sevnty million on that already ,which brings us to this point Fletcher tried to bring the Americans in ,with the view to stadium purchase,but the council vetoed,he's been on record several times since stating the club will not be able to move forward without it , Ransoms mantra was continually "we won't be moving on that any time soon".This leads me to the conclusion that Hoffmans bid should have been recieved more pragmaticly,not because hes just a covf fan ,but others on his team are coventry connected as well,think possibly Geoffrey Robinson,saint or sinner depending on your polotics and views on his previous tenure,the dodgy one Sam alladyce could have been dealt with simply by his resignation,at the time the initial contact took place he was unemployed,it was asimple directorship within i believe an online gambling outfit ,as part of the funding group,that may have been questionable in itself .The name fronting the group Ken Bruce has been at the head of the Fanny May mortgage group,one the big ones that were really in the doodoo after the crash ,big bailout by the american government,so not the greatest advert,but the reason ithink Hoffman should have his chance is time and the passing of it.every delay takes the stadium further away from us,it feels souless most of the time,if we owned it we'd feel connected properly with it ,attend it more,spend our money in there more,if fletcher had achieved this goal we'd be 4years down the road ,4years more succesful, this is why i come across against the council.so finally there is not much to choose between any three that have or will attempt this purchase,but Sisu have kicked ball down the line and made me really angry ,becuase i think Hoffman would have got us through the councils door much sooner.

Astute · Sep 10, 2011

Owning the ground is not as important as you say although is important. How many fans will think on the lines as "we now own the ground so I will now go to watch my team" or "we now own the ground so I will sing louder and longer. Results on the pitch are what we need the most. This will give confidence both for the players and for the fans. more bums on seats means more income. More income means more investment, or at least less reason for players to be sold. Confidence will mean more wins. We have not been outplayed in the league yet this season so we are not that far away. We have been lacking a goalscorer. Hopefully this is now solved. Then with the confidence to go forward more more players will give it a go. Bigi looks to have a good shot on him. It could all be falling into place, although we will not know until we see how Cody settles in to the Championship. He comes with confidence. Let's not knock it out of him.

Godiva · Sep 10, 2011

wingy said:
... but Sisu have kicked ball down the line and made me really angry ,becuase i think Hoffman would have got us through the councils door much sooner.

I understand what you are saying, but being pragmatic would have been to make a friendly bid, not a hostile one. If Hoffman had come in and said he wanted a joint venture, then I think the club would have benefited.

There are obviously some history in there - and hot tempers doesn't help anybody. It's sad really, because the club needs investments.

Is SISU to blame? Is Hoffman? I think they both are and I would be happy to pay out of my own money to send Igwe and Hoffman on a combined anger management and team work course!

wingy · Sep 10, 2011

Astute said:
Owning the ground is not as important as you say although is important. How many fans will think on the lines as "we now own the ground so I will now go to watch my team" or "we now own the ground so I will sing louder and longer. Results on the pitch are what we need the most. This will give confidence both for the players and for the fans. more bums on seats means more income. More income means more investment, or at least less reason for players to be sold. Confidence will mean more wins. We have not been outplayed in the league yet this season so we are not that far away. We have been lacking a goalscorer. Hopefully this is now solved. Then with the confidence to go forward more more players will give it a go. Bigi looks to have a good shot on him. It could all be falling into place, although we will not know until we see how Cody settles in to the Championship. He comes with confidence. Let's not knock it out of him.

sorry Astute was in the middle of a lengthy reply and lost it i'm hopeless with technology and running out of time with chores to do then up the game 3-1 to us carry on later if you like

Astute · Sep 10, 2011

wingy said:
sorry Astute was in the middle of a lengthy reply and lost it i'm hopeless with technology and running out of time with chores to do then up the game 3-1 to us carry on later if you like

2-1 to us more like :claping hands:

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 10, 2011

Godiva said:
If we slide down the divisions as you say then the investors will never make any money. If the club starts to make a profit it will only be in this division or the one above. In that case the investors have turned the club around, stopped the bleeding and put it in a better condition than it was at take over. In that event I would be happy if the investors actually got something in return. Yes, Incredible! Isn't it?

If you'd read what I was talking about (and seeing as you quote me, I'm assuming it's a direct response), it was SISU reducing all costs until we are actually making a profit. As such, the wage bill would have to be reduced to maybe a max wage of around 3-4k, and average of around 1.5-2k. I think this is already happenening, and it is playing a major part in our league position. Thus, keep reducing wages, and you get worse players, you lose games, you get relegated. I don't expect SISU to understand this, but I do expect a football fan to!

Back to the "masterplan": I'm sure Dulieu said something about us having the 23rd or 24th best budget in the division this season. But why is that-we don't have the worse gates by any means. Surely we should have a mid-table budget? It can't be the ground issue, as people often claim that it would make little difference.

So if all these teams have higher budgets than us, and some get lower gates, how come they aren't losing 300-500k a month as we supposedly are?

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 10, 2011

oldskyblue58 said:
what puzzles me on the contracts is that we give mcpake and bell longer contracts (both on the fringe of things) yest someone like Crainie there is no movement. Can see why some players like Eastwood offered nothing but I would have thought others stood out for extended terms

I'd assume that all out of contract players were offered terms (erm..maybe not Freddy!). Bell and McPake snatched their hands off at the first offer, Cranie and Clingan said "thanks, but I'm keeping my options open". That's partly why selling Turner for 750k seems dumb to me: surely we should have cashed in on Cranie, who had a year on his deal, rather than Turner, who had 3? We could now lose Cranie for nothing, but he would surely have gone for a similar amount to Turner?

Tonylinc · Sep 11, 2011

Astute said:
Owning the ground is not as important as you say although is important. How many fans will think on the lines as "we now own the ground so I will now go to watch my team" or "we now own the ground so I will sing louder and longer. Results on the pitch are what we need the most. This will give confidence both for the players and for the fans. more bums on seats means more income. More income means more investment, or at least less reason for players to be sold. Confidence will mean more wins. We have not been outplayed in the league yet this season so we are not that far away. We have been lacking a goalscorer. Hopefully this is now solved. Then with the confidence to go forward more more players will give it a go. Bigi looks to have a good shot on him. It could all be falling into place, although we will not know until we see how Cody settles in to the Championship. He comes with confidence. Let's not knock it out of him.

With respect owning a share in the Ricoh is more important than you seem to think. Fans need to feel contected to their club. At present Cov. fans do not feel this. They know that no income from parking, catering etc. goes to the club and as a result are likely to spend less when visiting the stadium.

shmmeee · Sep 11, 2011

Nonleagueherewecome said:
So if all these teams have higher budgets than us, and some get lower gates, how come they aren't losing 300-500k a month as we supposedly are?

That right there is the million dollar question isn't it? I'd love for someone like OSB or Godiva to have a go at answering it.

There is no right answer here NLHWC, let's say we take the other route out of losing money "speculate to accumulate". What if we don't make it up against the likes of Forest, Leicester, Leeds, the L1 teams, etc. and end up in 3 years time with players contracts running out and a debt of £70/80/100m? Then what?

shmmeee · Sep 11, 2011

Tonylinc said:
With respect owning a share in the Ricoh is more important than you seem to think. Fans need to feel contected to their club. At present Cov. fans do not feel this. They know that no income from parking, catering etc. goes to the club and as a result are likely to spend less when visiting the stadium.

With respect, it doesn't do the likes of Man City, Barcelona, Inter Milan any harm in fan relations. I seriously doubt there's a significant amount of fans (by that I mean spending in total more than £10k per match) that curb their spending due to the ownership of the caterers.

wingy · Sep 11, 2011

shmmeee said:
With respect, it doesn't do the likes of Man City, Barcelona, Inter Milan any harm in fan relations. I seriously doubt there's a significant amount of fans (by that I mean spending in total more than £10k per match) that curb their spending due to the ownership of the caterers.

do they have a club with empty pockets ,13000 diehards,and none of the income streams ,dont know,would those income streams affect their existance ,do they feel affinity to the stadium becuase they experience success?

Jack Griffin · Sep 11, 2011

shmmeee said:
That right there is the million dollar question isn't it? I'd love for someone like OSB or Godiva to have a go at answering it.

There is no right answer here NLHWC, let's say we take the other route out of losing money "speculate to accumulate". What if we don't make it up against the likes of Forest, Leicester, Leeds, the L1 teams, etc. and end up in 3 years time with players contracts running out and a debt of £70/80/100m? Then what?

Regarding losses per month see the "Losses 500K per month" paragraph in OSB/Godivas FAQs. http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/11316-FAQ-2-Money-Talks
I think they are saying we don't & the 500K figure is spin based on amortisation of player accounts, plus more cost cutting has ocurred since those figures were done.

Lack of ownership of stadium etc. does not effect my spending decisions in anyway, basically the food is bad value crap & I don't buy it, Tescos is nearby if I want a snack before or during the game, of course some people like a drink at the game, but only ever done that half a dozen times in nearly 40 years going up on & off (crikey is it that long).

Godiva · Sep 11, 2011

Nonleagueherewecome said:
If you'd read what I was talking about (and seeing as you quote me, I'm assuming it's a direct response), it was SISU reducing all costs until we are actually making a profit. As such, the wage bill would have to be reduced to maybe a max wage of around 3-4k, and average of around 1.5-2k. I think this is already happenening, and it is playing a major part in our league position. Thus, keep reducing wages, and you get worse players, you lose games, you get relegated. I don't expect SISU to understand this, but I do expect a football fan to!

Back to the "masterplan": I'm sure Dulieu said something about us having the 23rd or 24th best budget in the division this season. But why is that-we don't have the worse gates by any means. Surely we should have a mid-table budget? It can't be the ground issue, as people often claim that it would make little difference.

So if all these teams have higher budgets than us, and some get lower gates, how come they aren't losing 300-500k a month as we supposedly are?

shmmeee said:
That right there is the million dollar question isn't it? I'd love for someone like OSB or Godiva to have a go at answering it.

There is no right answer here NLHWC, let's say we take the other route out of losing money "speculate to accumulate". What if we don't make it up against the likes of Forest, Leicester, Leeds, the L1 teams, etc. and end up in 3 years time with players contracts running out and a debt of £70/80/100m? Then what?

Well, that would require me to do an indept analysis of the other 23 teams accounts, but I think I will pass on that.
Some teams might be milking a sugar daddy, others may have better income stream, some lower costs and a few may be piling up external debts.

But that's all irrelevant. In my eyes it's not about what the other teams do - it's about what WE do, and there seem to be very few options left.
We have for far too many years been living way beyond our means and it has taken us absolutely nowhere. Fans are angry that the owners refuse to keep on making the same mistake but have chosen another strategy.

What is the sisu masterplan (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency