Fisher Yesterday (1 Viewer)

[dongonzalos]

I don't know why people find this concept so hard to understand. Think of it in terms of selling your house. You might not have your house on the market, therefore it is 'not for sale' but if someone knocked on the door and made you an offer you'd consider it and if their offer was acceptable to you you'd sell.

While SISU aren't putting anything into the club there is no incentive for them to sell unless someone comes along and makes them an offer that allows them to walk away relatively unscathed.

The concept I struggle with is
the owner of Sunderland will no longer put a penny into Sunderland
'Why' because he has told everyone he would like to sell it.
Randy Lerner previously stopped putting a penny into Villa. 'Why' because he told everyone he wanted to sell it.
The reason they told everyone they wanted to sell was because that increases the chances of finding a buyer.
SISU say they don't want to put another penny into the club. Then say the club is not for sale.
Which begs the question what is the long term plan?
The short term seems to be ensure SISU don't put in a penny. Which personally and I think you agree without creating a gem each season isn't possible.
So what is the long term plan. I would have thought sell the club. Well what will change between now and next year. Possibly a relegation that loses the club value. I can't see any change that increases the value. So why wait saying it isn't for sale?
That's the only concept I struggle with.
The only thing I can think is maybe its till they get us renting somewhere for an academy and training facility. So they can maximise the value of the Ryton Asset.
Then sell the club.
I don't buy the idea of waiting for Wasps to go bust, as that isn't happening.

 

---

[Hobo]

The problem with SISU is their strategies and public statements are often bizarre and at odds with common sense.

 

[dongonzalos]

He has stated that they will not sell at the bottom. So to me that means that yes our club is for sale. But the price would be too low in Division 3. Realistically we will need to be minimum top half of the Championship. Won't be easy doing it without making a loss. But if we get behind the team, have a decent manager and a bit of luck on our side it can be done.

Sorry Astute but are you saying SISU's business plan is run the club at breakeven. Which with our finances means a low division 3 budget. Which is likely to only get lower. Then hope at some point we employ a genius manager who with that budget can get us to top half of the championship so SISU can sell the club.
I appreciate if for example Slade massively over achieves and gets us promotion crowds will go up. So the budget will go up. However in championship terms it will still be in the bottom 5.
So he has to massively over achieve again once there. To get us to where they will sell.
Also whilst this is all happening what are they doing about where we are going to play and where our academy are going to play?
Also to it seems in order to maintain this lower division 3 budget we have to unearth and sell a gem each season. Is that possible?

 

[Captain Dart]

The problem with SISU is their strategies and public statements are often bizarre and at odds with common sense.

Well is that is because they don't want to show their hand and want to confuse and misdirect interested onlookers?

 

[Mild-Mannered Janitor]

He says he is not paid by the club, probably factually true. Next phone in or question time with him should be.

Tim, who are you employed by in a paid capacity or could you declare your ownership interests in any companies that provide supplies to any related parties of CCFC or ARVO etc.

He wouldn't be taking the shit he does without decent remuneration somewhere or somehow.

 

[Pete in Portugal]

Sorry Astute but are you saying SISU's business plan is run the club at breakeven. Which with our finances means a low division 3 budget. Which is likely to only get lower. Then hope at some point we employ a genius manager who with that budget can get us to top half of the championship so SISU can sell the club.
I appreciate if for example Slade massively over achieves and gets us promotion crowds will go up. So the budget will go up. However in championship terms it will still be in the bottom 5.
So he has to massively over achieve again once there. To get us to where they will sell.
Also whilst this is all happening what are they doing about where we are going to play and where our academy are going to play?
Also to it seems in order to maintain this lower division 3 budget we have to unearth and sell a gem each season. Is that possible?

I think it's possible, but very unlikely. I believe SISU are simply buying time at the moment. Breaking even, (or better), while trying to stay in League 1. This is to allow them to complete the stripping of the club's assets. Once this is done, they will either sell the club for whatever they can get, or if no significant offers materialise, they will put the club in administration. The big unknown is the timescale involved.

 

[Astute]

Sorry Astute but are you saying SISU's business plan is run the club at breakeven. Which with our finances means a low division 3 budget. Which is likely to only get lower. Then hope at some point we employ a genius manager who with that budget can get us to top half of the championship so SISU can sell the club.
I appreciate if for example Slade massively over achieves and gets us promotion crowds will go up. So the budget will go up. However in championship terms it will still be in the bottom 5.
So he has to massively over achieve again once there. To get us to where they will sell.
Also whilst this is all happening what are they doing about where we are going to play and where our academy are going to play?
Also to it seems in order to maintain this lower division 3 budget we have to unearth and sell a gem each season. Is that possible?

Slade has brought players in already. Players he knows. We are in a division he knows. Wouldn't be a miracle to improve where we were before he arrived.

How many times do we see clubs outperform us that work on a much lower budget? It isn't just what the budget is. It is what you do with it. If our performances and results improve so will our attendances. And if we are going to be run cash neutral we have the manager to get us out of this shitty division. CCFC needs it. We need it. And I don't care about the politics. SISU need it the most. They need something to sell and not try and take a few quid out each year risking us going lower and taking any exit further away and risking losing more money.

 

[dongonzalos]

I think it's possible, but very unlikely. I believe SISU are simply buying time at the moment. Breaking even, (or better), while trying to stay in League 1. This is to allow them to complete the stripping of the club's assets. Once this is done, they will either sell the club for whatever they can get, or if no significant offers materialise, they will put the club in administration. The big unknown is the timescale involved.

The one remaining asset to sort out is Ryton.
Then see what they can get for the golden share, compared to administration.
That's my thinking as well.

 

[Astute]

The one remaining asset to sort out is Ryton.
Then see what they can get for the golden share, compared to administration.
That's my thinking as well.

The golden share can't be sold.

 

[dongonzalos]

Slade has brought players in already. Players he knows. We are in a division he knows. Wouldn't be a miracle to improve where we were before he arrived.

How many times do we see clubs outperform us that work on a much lower budget? It isn't just what the budget is. It is what you do with it. If our performances and results improve so will our attendances. And if we are going to be run cash neutral we have the manager to get us out of this shitty division. CCFC needs it. We need it. And I don't care about the politics. SISU need it the most. They need something to sell and not try and take a few quid out each year risking us going lower and taking any exit further away and risking losing more money.

I know what you are saying mate and no it's not a miracle it massively overachieving. Yes people have done it like Yeovil and Burton.
I get the concept that it's possible in this division. Unlikely but possible.
The next bit you said was top half of the championship so they can sell. That's the bit I don't see happening with trying to run at breakeven.
I get your logic that's the only time to sell if you want a decent bid.
However to get there SISU need to understand they have to invest in order to get anything back. They don't get that or they get it but can't raise the funds.
I just don't see this as their strategy there are too many massive hopes.
I think they have a different plan in place

 

[oldfiver]

Didn't Fisher say recently something like Every club is for sale?

There is a saying in business that everything is for sale at the right price.
If there is a buyer out there they should put in a serious offer and see what response they get. At least then there is a "marker" about which a discussion can tak eplace.

 

[dongonzalos]

The golden share can't be sold.

When I say golden share I meant the club. It's just it will be the golden share that gives the club any value. Hence why it is better for SISU to keep us in the league.

 

[Grendel]

When I say golden share I meant the club. It's just it will be the golden share that gives the club any value. Hence why it is better for SISU to keep us in the league.

The golden share has no value or worth in a sake if the club is in administration. Administrators will look at the offers in relation to debts and the best offer in terms of viability

Administration isn't going to happen under this business model anyway.

 

[tisza]

There still has to be a point when the money SISU have tied up in the club has to be showing a return for investors.
It's not SISU's money it belongs to investors.
Surely one of the reasons SISU have this breakeven policy is that they can't find it easy to get their investors to agree to putting more money into a non-returning venture.

 

[tisza]

The golden share has no value or worth in a sake if the club is in administration. Administrators will look at the offers in relation to debts and the best offer in terms of viability

Administration isn't going to happen under this business model anyway.

exactlythis. Only threat of administration under this model would be if the owners or ARVO called their loans in. Unlikely to happen.

 

[dongonzalos]

The golden share has no value or worth in a sake if the club is in administration. Administrators will look at the offers in relation to debts and the best offer in terms of viability

Administration isn't going to happen under this business model anyway.

It's the only thing I can see happening under this business model.
It's just delaying it from happening for some reason.
What do you think SISU's short and long term strategy is?

 

[Astute]

I know what you are saying mate and no it's not a miracle it massively overachieving. Yes people have done it like Yeovil and Burton.
I get the concept that it's possible in this division. Unlikely but possible.
The next bit you said was top half of the championship so they can sell. That's the bit I don't see happening with trying to run at breakeven.
I get your logic that's the only time to sell if you want a decent bid.
However to get there SISU need to understand they have to invest in order to get anything back. They don't get that or they get it but can't raise the funds.
I just don't see this as their strategy there are too many massive hopes.
I think they have a different plan in place

They have wasted money on us so far. No matter what they put in we have been near the bottom of both divisions we have been in with them. So who could blame them for stemming the flow?

So if they saw that they had a chance of a way out with a small outlay if we were doing well....

 

[Astute]

What do you think SISU's short and long term strategy is?

Getting out and getting the most money with the smallest outlay.

 

[dongonzalos]

exactlythis. Only threat of administration under this model would be if the owners or ARVO called their loans in. Unlikely to happen.

The only way to avoid administration is if somebody makes a bid.
Actual breakeven isn't happening unless a player is sold.
Trying to actually achieve it is a spiral downwards at some point.
Surely SISU will be left with a choice either to put money in to plug the gap or put the club into administration before the club naturally falls so far it would lose the golden share.
The only way I can't see administration happening is if someone bids.
I can't see anyone bidding if they look at this model as they would assume eventually if they wait they will get it cheaper from administration.
Just my guess of course from a very laymans perspective.

 

[tisza]

The only way to avoid administration is if somebody makes a bid.
Actual breakeven isn't happening unless a player is sold.
Trying to actually achieve it is a spiral downwards at some point.
Surely SISU will be left with a choice either to put money in to plug the gap or put the club into administration before the club naturally falls so far it would lose the golden share.
The only way I can't see administration happening is if someone bids.
I can't see anyone bidding if they look at this model as they would assume eventually if they wait they will get it cheaper from administration.
Just my guess of course from a very laymans perspective.

can't just put a club into administration because it is isn't doing well on the pitch.

Breaking even (even with player sales) is still okay from a business perspective and in the eyes of the court.
The model shows that as a business they can continue to run by cutting costs to compensate for reduced income.
There are no special circumstances that I am aware of that means a sports club would be treated differently than any other business.

As long as debts are internal then there is no issue.
Under present circumstances only SISU or ARVO have large amounts owing and they wouldn't benefit from administration as they could get more by just selling the club.
If, for example, the Academy closed then it could be different as they have been generating the income stream (players sold).

 

[Astute]

As long as all football debts are paid the FL will bend over backwards to help.

If nobody else asks for their money back nothing would happen. So would SISU ask SISU for their money back?

 

[dongonzalos]

can't just put a club into administration because it is isn't doing well on the pitch.

Breaking even (even with player sales) is still okay from a business perspective and in the eyes of the court.
The model shows that as a business they can continue to run by cutting costs to compensate for reduced income.
There are no special circumstances that I am aware of that means a sports club would be treated differently than any other business.

As long as debts are internal then there is no issue.
Under present circumstances only SISU or ARVO have large amounts owing and they wouldn't benefit from administration as they could get more by just selling the club.
If, for example, the Academy closed then it could be different as they have been generating the income stream (players sold).

The point I am making is that breaking even only if you sell a player, is not a viable business plan as you can't guarantee you have that player to sell.
Attendances will naturally fall so you have to make more cuts to try and get to breakeven. Which will lead to further fall in attendances.

When you say they will just sell the club, to who?

Who would buy the club when you can see the only natural conclusion under the current business model is administration. You would wait.
If there is no buyer then under the current plan SISU would eventually have to choose between putting money in or taking administration.

If you keep sitting there under the current model the administration value sums falling as is the sale value.

It doesn't make sense

 

[dongonzalos]

As long as all football debts are paid the FL will bend over backwards to help.

If nobody else asks for their money back nothing would happen. So would SISU ask SISU for their money back?

SISU would need to choose between administration or putting money in at some point.
Unles we have a Wilson, Maddison, Stevenson, every year.
That is the only way of breaking even.
Then what happens at the end of this year regarding the academy.
What happens at the end of next year regarding a place to play.

 

[Astute]

SISU would need to choose between administration or putting money in at some point.
Unles we have a Wilson, Maddison, Stevenson, every year.
That is the only way of breaking even.
Then what happens at the end of this year regarding the academy.
What happens at the end of next year regarding a place to play.

Or cutting the wage bill.....or putting a product on the pitch that we are happy to pay for.

 

[dongonzalos]

Or cutting the wage bill.....or putting a product on the pitch that we are happy to pay for.

What happens when you cut the wage bill? (90% of the time).

 

[Captain Dart]

What happens when you cut the wage bill? (90% of the time).

I wonder what the staff costs will be like in the next accounts compared to last year. I'm thinking they'll be a 20-25% cut.

 

[Astute]

What happens when you cut the wage bill? (90% of the time).

What happens when you ask yourself to pay back money you owe to yourself? :smuggrin:

 

[dongonzalos]

What happens when you ask yourself to pay back money you owe to yourself? :smuggrin:

What do you actually mean by this?

When you cut your wage bill your product on the pitch does not usually improve it usually goes down.
Which leads to a drop in attendances.

 

[Astute]

I wonder what the staff costs will be like in the next accounts compared to last year. I'm thinking they'll be a 20-25% cut.

Depends what happens with Slades recruiting. But as our attendances are down I will expect there to be a cut.

 

[Astute]

What do you actually mean by this?

Who do SISU owe money to?

I know that the names are different. But they all come from the same bucket of shite.

 

[dongonzalos]

Who do SISU owe money to?

I know that the names are different. But they all come from the same bucket of shite.

If you can't get to breakeven.
If you refuse to put money in.
If you get to the point where you have to put money in to bridge that gap but you don't have access to money to do that.
If there is no buyer for your business.
If your business is going to lose its only real asset if you continue down this route.
What do you then do?

 

[Astute]

Why spend money on a decent manager when they didn't have to?

 

[dongonzalos]

Why spend money on a decent manager when they didn't have to?

I think Tim Fishers job is to get the club as high as he can without SISU spending a penny.
Unfortunately unlike you I don't think that is in order to get us to top half if the championship then sell. (I wish it was). I don't think even they think that that is possible.
I think they believe there is a buyer out there. I think they will sell Ryton and get us renting our training and academy facilities.
I think they want to convince the buyer to bid and bid as high as they can, as they can sit there all day waiting.
Whereas in reality that plan won't work over time we will slip down the league eventually one season get relegated. Then over time the sane will happen in division 4. However the threat of relegation from there will force administration.
Personally if it was me they would be better going for administration now.
All just my guesses. As I have no idea about this sort of thing.
However I though sicfiekds was all about getting ACL for next to nothing and I thought the move would hurt us more than ACL, which is what happened.
I thought selling Juke was a white flag for relegation. That once down there we are unlikely to return.
I felt that the legal action will just prevent any future movement for the club, as no one will negotiate with us.
I feel the only genuine option for SISU now is administration now.
Or source 25 million and go for absolute broke for the championship play offs.
The first one of which is the only one that I see as realistic

 

[tisza]

The point I am making is that breaking even only if you sell a player, is not a viable business plan as you can't guarantee you have that player to sell.

But it is seen as a viable business plan because they have been able to do it for the last few years. Wilson, Maddison, now maybe Stevenson. These are youth team products who cost basically nothing and were sold on for a prof. They had little book value - as far as I remember players as assets relates to the value of their playing contract only.
Again as far as administration goes on the field performance is irrelevant.
The issue with there being no buyer is hard to argue as no offers have been asked for or put in.
As it stands at the moment almost any offer would outweigh administration "income" for the owners due to the club owning next to nothing.

 

[dongonzalos]

But it is seen as a viable business plan because they have been able to do it for the last few years. Wilson, Maddison, now maybe Stevenson. These are youth team products who cost basically nothing and were sold on for a prof. They had little book value - as far as I remember players as assets relates to the value of their playing contract only.
Again as far as administration goes on the field performance is irrelevant.
The issue with there being no buyer is hard to argue as no offers have been asked for or put in.
As it stands at the moment almost any offer would outweigh administration "income" for the owners due to the club owning next to nothing.

Agree with your last bit.
Not your first bit you can't run the survival of a business on a variable that may or may not happen.
We won't produce players like that every year. This year Stevenson surprised everyone. No one expected him to make the step up so easily.
Imagine him not getting sold this year.
Then the drop in season ticket sales as well.
Administration will be affected by performance in the pitch.
No success on the pitch naturally leads to a fall in attendance. Fall in attendance leads to a fall in revenue.
Fall in revenue means cuts to try and break even which leads to less performance in the pitch.
It's a downward spiral which eventually leads to you choosing to invest or administration (if there is no buyer)
I agree a buyer would always be preferable