Put the blame where it belongs (1 Viewer)

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Seems like 80-85% on this board are certain that all bad things are courtesy of SISU.
That if they only shower the club with a few extra milions everything will be fine.

But it may not be as simple as that.

SISU have already invested >25mio Pounds. That is actually quite a lot of money. And as long as the club is losing money, they keep covering the deficit ... or they have at least till now.

SISU were presented with a business plan for the take over. Somebody pursuaded them that it would be a good business opportunity and that they could make a profit. That somebody was RR and SISU told him 'if this is such a great idea, then you must put your own money at risk. Do that and we will put in the rest.'
SISU probably also made it very clear from the start, that they had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever as to run a football club, so RR as chairman made perfect sense - especially as he became shareholder himself. His decisions - good or bad - would also determine if his own investment would come good.

I would imagine that SISU and Ranson agreed on a three year financial plan. And I take it the goal was to make the club profitable within the timeframe.
The three years are up these days and has the goal been achieved?
I don't think so, and in the business world this means that heads are going to get chopped.

This season - Ransons 'delivery' season has been littered with odd decisions that in my mind shows how poor a leader Ranson really is.
The worst decision was signing MK9 when this meant the wage budget went bust. I guess Ranson agreed to the signing because AB promissed a 20+ goal striker that would take us to the upper part of the table - thus ensuring more people at the gate - thus more money going in. I also guess that AB promissed to lower the wage budget by selling off whoever would command a fee - even Westwood in January - and letting others go out on loan.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Famous words by Karl Marx.
I am sure Ranson and Boothroyd had all the best intentions when they signed the players they did. Supporters can argue if they signed the right players - McSheffrey, Carsley, MK9, O'Donnavan to name a few that we supporters have discussed the value of, but at the end of the day they were signed for a reason.
I also believe Ranson and Boothroyd had all the right intentions when they broke the wage budget even though the income from the gates were in decline.
But at the end of the day - Their decisions meant that there were no money left for new players in the January window. And as they could not get any money from selling Westie - they couldn't even bring in short time loans.

Back to my headline.
Is this all SISU's fault?
I would say NO. SISU have done nothing wrong. They have lived up to their part of the bargain - the one who have failed is Ranson.
His decisions brought the club to where it is financially.
We cannot blame SISU for not 'just write another checque' and we should not behave like spoiled children who scream at their parents for not getting one more icecream.

SISU are in as INVESTORS. They are not sugardaddys. They took a calculated risk when they agreed to the adventure, but all they have done so far is deliver 'stupid money'. Clever decisions should have been made by Ranson and if he had succeded it would have been the perfect match.

It will be interesting to see what SISU will do next, but you can't blame them for not sticking to their side of the bargain - they have.
 

GaryPendrysEyes

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what 'plan' you are talking about but the week Ranson took over he announced ongoing SISU investment in the club of 20m+ over 3 years. That hasnt happened..
The common view is they reneged because of the financial crash.. but whatever they did not deliver agreed investment and that just left us in cost cutting mode, scraping around going nowhere for the last 3 years.
 

DazzleTommyDazzle

Well-Known Member
A lot of sense in what you say.

The question is where do we go from here?

I'm sure that if SISU could wind back the clock, they wouldn't invest in CCFC. But they did. So now they hold a fairly expensive (£25m?) investment in a loss making business that seems to be going backwards.

Do they invest more (good money after bad?) in an attempt to turn things around or do they cut their losses and walk away?

In a normal investment, my guess is that in the absence of anyone to sell to (and the queue of potential investors is probably pretty short) they'd cut their losses and wind things up. A football club (even CCFC) is more high profile than the average business, but will that factor be strong enough to persuade them to take a more "generous" approach?

Things don't look very positive.
 

Covstu

Well-Known Member
I think as we found out the last time, the queue of millionaires waiting to invest is not that long at the moment. SISU will want someone to absorb some if not all of the debt and they wont simply walk away. Doesnt RR still have a stake regardless of being chairman or not?
 

BenInTurin

Facebook User
I think you're very wrong, Ranson has wanted to resign 2 or 3 times since he's been in charge but has been persuaded not to. You're right in saying he came into the club along with SISU as he is the one with the football knowledge. What you're getting wrong is that several times, he has hand his hand forced by the majority shareholder, SISU in footballing matters. He would except he's made mistakes, just like the managers with had have made, but the problem he has is when SISU overule his power and choose to sell the likes of Foxx, Dann and Thomas.

I think fans have a right to be angry at SISU, yes they're not sugardaddies, but if they're in it for the long term why do they insist on selling our best/future prospects as soon as an offer comes in? If they're spending £8 million a season then what's the difference if it's £10 but with a team competing for the play-offs because I'm certain this is what it would have been like if we'd kept the above mentioned players.
 

LarryGrayson

New Member
they were never gonna be in it for the long term there an investment fund there whole point is to make a buck or get out any sane man allus saw that there not doing anything different now to what they did do before last season but now colemans gone who else can we blame
 

DazzleTommyDazzle

Well-Known Member
I think as we found out the last time, the queue of millionaires waiting to invest is not that long at the moment. SISU will want someone to absorb some if not all of the debt and they wont simply walk away. Doesnt RR still have a stake regardless of being chairman or not?

Can't say for sure, but normally these type of "private equity" agreements have provisions that if a Director resigns, his shares go to the main finance provider (SISU in this case of course) at a pre-determined price.

This is usually meant to be a major disincentive to leaving, but in this case if RR gets anything for his shares he may see it as a bonus!
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
I think you will find that when SISU took over they paid all outstanding creditors (in some cases at a discount). The only way that could happen was by actually paying with SISU money. Over the years they have also used money to even out the operating loss.
I hear that all amounts to £25+mio.

*That was to GaryPendriesEyes* - apparantly I forgot to Reply with Quote. Sry.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
I think you will find that when SISU took over they paid all outstanding creditors (in some cases at a discount). The only way that could happen was by actually paying with SISU money. Over the years they have also used money to even out the operating loss.
I hear that all amounts to £25+mio.

*That was to GaryPendriesEyes* - apparantly I forgot to Reply with Quote. Sry.

Not true at all, think that in the accounts an awful lot of the previous debt was just rolled over, to be paid at some future date(imminent?).

What Sisu(and their apologists) call £25million investment by Sisu, is merely the parking of the previous debt, not clearing at all.

Suspect that with player sales, and cutting costs, they have actually invested little money in the club themselves to cover the operating costs.
 

skybluetom

New Member
Godiva you make a lot of good points but you can't go into a football club and basically pay the bills and hope like some miracle the club is going to turn itself around. The club has been on it's knees ever since leaving the Premier League, same as it is now really. If somebody came in tomorrow and said we're going to keep funding the club so it can funtion as it is now, it's not going to go anywhere. We're a very average team that needs major investment to have any hope of gaining promotion. Football people would have known that, they should not have got involved in the first place. If Ranson knew they were not going to put the money in required then I agree with you, he's just much to blame. If like I suspect the goalposts have changed over a period of time then I have a degree of sympathy with the bloke.

The whole thing stinks of businessmen running a club who don't understand football, Ranson hasn't been in charge clearly since money was put on the table for Scott Dann. Those businessman could only see that money infront of them, that's not what Ranson could see because he knew the only way forward to try and build the team around players like Dann and Fox. Another thing that sticks out to me is the removal of Steve Kean, that was a bizare decision. Clearly wouldn't be a Coleman one as they were best mates, Ranson seemed quite loyal to Coleman and I can't see him going over Coleman's head and getting rid of his assistant and good friend. My guess is Sisu go to Ranson and say things are not working out as quickly as we'd have liked perhaps they wanted rid of Coleman but Ranson persuaded them to compromise and we got an experienced coach in next to him. I'm of course not saying Kean going changed anything or it somehow changed the course of our season for the worst but it's just interference from top, it undermines everybody bellow especially when you haven't got a clue what your doing. Ranson wouldn't have sacked Boothroyd either.

When they went in with Ranson they had to trust him to run the club, they couldn't obviously.
 
Last edited:

GaryPendrysEyes

Well-Known Member
I think you will find that when SISU took over they paid all outstanding creditors (in some cases at a discount). The only way that could happen was by actually paying with SISU money. Over the years they have also used money to even out the operating loss.
I hear that all amounts to £25+mio.

*That was to GaryPendriesEyes* - apparantly I forgot to Reply with Quote. Sry.

I have my doubts (as per Lord) about the INITIAL monies and where the debt is--- my point was that AFTER the initial purchase they promised another £20m over 3 years ... that never happened.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Skybluetom,
Nice reply and well written.

I think we all need to understand that from SISU's point of wiev this is just another investment. And the investment is made on the same premisses as every other investments - to make a profit.
SISU themselves didn't wake up one morning with the bright idea to buy a football club. They were approached by somebody who pursuaded them that buying Coventry City could be a good bit of business. This guy may have been Ranson - or it may have been the previous owners looking for a way out.
In any case - they did team up with Ranson and after agreeing to a plan and a budget, SISU put people on the board to keep tap on their investment and make sure things were running according to plan.

When you say 'it stinks of businessmen running a club who don't understand football' you are right, and this is quite normal investor behaviour. Most investment money is placed where the money owner has not professional knowledge but by putting a true professional at the helm, the investor is satisfied the pro will look after his investment.
The 'businessmen' in this case are fund managers. They know how to put money into businesses, but probably not a lot of running the business. What they do know is how to monitor the development, and their most important tool is the budget and periodic income and cost statements. Whenever they spot overspending or lack of income according to the budget they will react to protect their investment.

I think Ranson was too optimistic when he agreed the financial plan and everytime the board was presented with overspending or lack of income they were forced to react.

We - the supporters - needs to wake and taste the coffee. Whoever the chairman, whoever the manager - they will have to run the business at a profit.

But when the business is running profitable - then new investments are much more likely.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
I have my doubts (as per Lord) about the INITIAL monies and where the debt is

There were many external creditors - the bank to name one. SISU paid them off.
The 'where have the debts gone' debate is not simple to understand and there are many myths floating around.
The simple answer is: The previous 'external' debts have been converted to 'internal' debts. This means that if CCFC goes bust the loans will be worthless - but as the loans are now owned by SISU it will be SISU who takes the hit.
It also means that if the club fail to pay interest or installment on the loans it will be SISU and not a bank or other external creditor who decide what action will be taken.

--- my point was that AFTER the initial purchase they promised another £20m over 3 years ... that never happened.

That is not what I have read or heard anywhere. Can you back this any sort of evidence ... links?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top