Mean while back in court (5 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

As an aside with hedge fund manager Ray Ranson, whatever happened to the enquiries bout his loan to Cardiff at wonga-esque interest rates, whilst he was our chairman?

 

---

[Deleted member 5849]

Caymen Islands, hedge funds... the question is, who taught who about the shady practices of football finance...

 

[Astute]

I wouldn't bother.

You are right. It is so easy to change history and make SISU look better than they are and blame CCC for as much as possible.

 

[Sick Boy]

As an aside with hedge fund manager Ray Ranson, whatever happened to the enquiries bout his loan to Cardiff at wonga-esque interest rates, whilst he was our chairman?

It was a trick by evil sisu, the poor little lamb.

 

[Sick Boy]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but in his very first interview at the club on the very day SISU took over wasn't he sat in the arena talking to midlands today and pretty much the first thing to come out of his mouth was something along the lines of look around you, the club needs to own this fantastic stadium?

Didn't like the bloke personally before you start saying something stupid like I'm only saying that because I love uncle Ray. But pretty sure I remember him saying that when he first arrived.

Yes you are wrong. There is a BBC article with RR stating that ownership shouldn't be a priority and investment in the squad should take priority.

 

[Astute]

Yes you are wrong. There is a BBC article with RR stating that ownership shouldn't be a priority and investment in the squad should take priority.

And what happened to the players he put together?

Oh yes they got sold so we never got past phase one.

 

[Calista]

Ahem.



In other words Calista, the Higgs share at a reduced price deviating from formula was non-negotiable until this all kicked off. Does sound much like the Wasps deal in terms of longer lease and lower purchase price however. (Edit - worth noting a 'derisory' offer hardly suggests the council embraced the SISU deal for the club, either!) SISU's bid was less capital, but not incuding the stadium. This, then, allows me to move to the following...

As for Ranson, it was his decision to spunk cash on players rather than the ground.

I totally agree - it seems to me that Higgs ended up selling at a loss, but were determined that it wouldn't be to the people who had played hardball and forced the loss on them. Disappointing but scarcely surprising. As Nick says, they were almost certainly disgusted with the club's willingness to throw millions at spoilt footballers, whilst claiming poverty when it came to paying the formula price. Again, having done the bailout, who can seriously blame them?

 

[Calista]

Yet more myths and bullshit surrounding 'uncle Ray'. It was well documented at the time that he didn't want the Ricoh and saw it as unimportant.

Of course he knew it was important – but his (and Joy’s) “strategy” was to play a waiting game. Doubt if we’ll ever know what the thinking was, but it didn’t work out too well

 

[Nick]

You are right. It is so easy to change history and make SISU look better than they are and blame CCC for as much as possible.

It's not changing history is it?

 

[covmark]

You are right. It is so easy to change history and make SISU look better than they are and blame CCC for as much as possible.

He put up a quote from Ranson ffs. How is it changing history? Jesus Christ.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[Calista]

The manhattan group walked away because the council would not sell the stadium. There reasons for not selling are only known to them. It's folly to think sisu could have just breezed in and bought the stadium. The council preferred sisu as they didn't want the stadium. Sisu didn't want it cos the premiership promised more money. We know there driven by money so that's little surprise.

Was it impossible to stump up the formula price to get the half-share back? OK the figure was too high in strict short-sighted commercial terms, but it reflected the bail-out the charity had performed, and (to repeat myself) was vital to the club's future. To avoid paying the £10 million or whatever it was, we must have burned through several times that amount.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I totally agree - it seems to me that Higgs ended up selling at a loss, but were determined that it wouldn't be to the people who had played hardball and forced the loss on them. Disappointing but scarcely surprising. As Nick says, they were almost certainly disgusted with the club's willingness to throw millions at spoilt footballers, whilst claiming poverty when it came to paying the formula price. Again, having done the bailout, who can seriously blame them?

However, the deal that was also considered derisory was the one that wasn't playing hardball, and was going in with the Wasps offer.

It's an uncomfortable truth that the (immoral? unethical?) recent practices have been the only things to change the council's mind on being flexible with their requests for ACL. It's worth noting that *nobody* has seen the ground on original lease terms worth buying.

To head off the accusations from the start...

the problem with an investment fund buying a football club has always been investors will want a return and, without the emotional investment in the club of an owner-fan, what do they do if it goes wrong? Now personally I thought we'd have been wound up by now. Nt sure which is better...

The other problem is an investment fund wants a quick return, so doesn't invest in the foundations of a club (i.e. players ahead of ground) which leaves the club in danger if player investment goes wrong.

However...

It's the council's inflexibility that encourages such practices too, as it leaves the field open for solely SISU-esque bidders, who play fast and loose. It's making such investments on commercial terms that turns this into a commercial dispute, and that is unedifying from both perspectives, but sadly inevitable when there are divergent aims from both partners.

Now, this probably isn't local government's fault. Blame national (and EU) policy that means state aid is not allowed in the traditional sense. Just what is wrong with state aid as a concept?

But, if it's to be a commercial battle, then I can't take sides as I find the very concept of making money from a social entity distateful in the extreme. I don't necessarily think the council's opening position can be excused or explained by SISU's actions - it was this hardball action that *encouraged* the likes of SISU.

And the likes of SISU are very bad news indeed.

So, we are where we are. Blame as to who started it can go round and round and round. It's naive to think this particular court case will resolve things too, but it has at least shone a light on both parties, and enquiring about practices is no bad thing. It might also be a stage in allowing all parties to move forward, instead of the circular arguments.

These circular arguments need to take place however, rather than blind acceptance and polarisation.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

2 former non-league clubs and the mighty Brentford maybe SISU aren't that bad after all. By the way hsve those 3 clubs got a ticket office and a club shop near at their ground ?

Who bloody cares how big the club shop is?! You've obviously got t'interweb, that's the worlds biggest shop...use that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Was it impossible to stump up the formula price to get the half-share back? OK the figure was too high in strict short-sighted commercial terms, but it reflected the bail-out the charity had performed, and (to repeat myself) was vital to the club's future. To avoid paying the £10 million or whatever it was, we must have burned through several times that amount.

I'm uncomfortable with it being 'bail-out'. This is the point of view that McGinnity and co guided us to think. It's also worth noting that the Ricoh project wasn't passed by council as a bail-out, it was only agreed once concessions were made to urban regeneration. The Ricoh project, in effect, used a football club as a battering ram to regenerate derelict land, which suited a council restricted by financial constraints, and yet with a need to do *something*.

The most cost-efficient bail-out would have been to let the club (with its assets) go into administration, and/or to take up the buy-back clause on Highfield Road.

It's also worth noting Higgs only got involved because Derek Higgs was on the board of CCFC. Arguable, he was as culpable as the rest of the board in trying to protect his own position there, rather than letting the club fall into administration.

So, CCC got what they wanted in terms of urban regeneration. McGinnity and Robinson... and Higgs, got what they wanted in terms of protecting their debts and heading off immediate catastrophe. Much like a hedge fund, in fact, they looked to the short term interest of their own investment, rather than the long term.

The achievement then, tbh, was McGinnity getting fans on side that it was Ricoh or bust. It's a shame he did. It's also worth noting that the popular will for it to be Ricoh or bust probably influenced council thinking in helping build the stadium, too.

As ever, there are ways of seeing.

To emphasise, I don't think anybody has done anything wrong (as in unlawful) here. I can also think the council have been straightjacketed by national policy, and have tried to do the right thing wrt building the Ricoh, and looking at the social gains (not necessarily from a football club's perspective, however). To my mind, 'bail-out' is not right however.

 

[Captain Dart]

It was a trick by evil sisu, the poor little lamb.

Isn't he is the only one who has successfully got out of this mess. Everyone else is still entangled by litigation.

 

[Astute]

He put up a quote from Ranson ffs. How is it changing history? Jesus Christ.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Anyone can find a quote from someone involved in this shitfest that goes well with what they want to say. Then they fill in the gaps and make it sound different so that they can put the blame on who they want.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Anyone can find a quote from someone involved in this shitfest that goes well with what they want to say. Then they fill in the gaps and make it sound different so that they can put the blame on who they want.

You seem unwilling to accept that hedge-fund manager Ranson said that the priority was the team, not owning the ground.

Whatever happened to being objective?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Of course he knew it was important – but his (and Joy’s) “strategy” was to play a waiting game. Doubt if we’ll ever know what the thinking was, but it didn’t work out too well

It didn't.

The thinking was perfectly simple anyway. (Relatively) small investment in the playing side resulting in promotion to top flight. Big TV deal then ratcheting up the value of the club, thus allowing either for a quick exit at a profit, or using the cash to grow the club. My money would be on the former of the two options...

Unfortunately, both hedge-fund manager Ranson, and hedge-fund manager Seppala are cut from the same cloth - short term profit motive rather than long term community investment. The sooner football's governance is changed so that club ownership isn't motivated by financial gain, the better.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You are right. It is so easy to change history and make SISU look better than they are and blame CCC for as much as possible.

covmark's right, there's no point in bothering if the response is such a childish attempt to skew thinking in a one-eyed direction as this.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Coventry City FC - Creating legal experts since 2006.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stupot07]

You seem unwilling to accept that hedge-fund manager Ranson said that the priority was the team, not owning the ground.

Whatever happened to being objective?

I remember him saying it on cwr in interviews a number of times. ranson's plan was to buy up and coming talent and hope to get promoted, make a quick buck and bugger off. Ranson was the chief strategist using sisu's money, and he didn't want to own the stadium at that time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I remember him saying it on cwr in interviews a number of times. ranson's plan was to buy up and coming talent and hope to get promoted, make a quick buck and bugger off. Ranson was the chief strategist using sisu's money, and he didn't want to own the stadium at that time.

Exactly.

I fail to see how it excuses SISU in the slightest. They bought into that very strategy!

 

[torchomatic]

I think he said the idea was 50 per cent ownership of the stadium in the "longer term". Priority was always the playing side.

 

[Astute]

You seem unwilling to accept that hedge-fund manager Ranson said that the priority was the team, not owning the ground.

Whatever happened to being objective?

The main part I said about this has been ignored. He wanted to build a side and brought in players. But SISU got cold feet and sold the players that were supposed to push for the Prem. And buying into the Ricoh was a priority. He knew how important it was.

So why did Ranson leave?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I think he said the idea was 50 per cent ownership of the stadium in the "longer term". Priority was always the playing side.

He did.

But apparently that's a desperate attempt to make SISU look good, that:facepalm:

What I don't understand is why there's a sudden desire to defend hedge-fund managers...

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The main part I said about this has been ignored.

The others walked away when they found out how bad things were at our club. Ranson wanted the Ricoh. SISU wanted the Prem then got cold feet when they saw how much of a gamble it was IIRC

Ranson did *not* want the Ricoh, but you resort to childish immature posts to defend the fact that you're... wrong

 

[Astute]

I think he said the idea was 50 per cent ownership of the stadium in the "longer term". Priority was always the playing side.

Top priority was to put together a winning side that put bums on seats. We were averaging just over 20k at the time. But they didn't agree on the strategy.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Top priority was to put together a winning side that put bums on seats. We were averaging just over 20k at the time. But they didn't agree on the strategy.

Good job they didn't agree on strategy, if Ranson's priority was buying players ahead of building the fundations of a club.

 

[Captain Dart]

Ranson did *not* want the Ricoh, but you resort to childish immature posts to defend the fact that you're... wrong

I think the initial strategy adopted by SISU/Ranson was utterly wrong. They should have first trimmed the wage bill & cleaned out the squad of under performing players on expensive contracts, even if that meant relegation, then rebuilt with an experienced manager who had a track record of promotion on a budget. Funnily enough this is what SISU are doing now, maybe I'm using 20/20 hindsight, but that more careful strategy always seemed better to me than buying instant success.

 

[Nick]

Ranson is a hero as he is seen as anti sisu.....

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I think the initial strategy adopted by SISU/Ranson was utterly wrong. They should have first trimmed the wage bill & cleaned out the squad of under performing players on expensive contracts, even if that meant relegation, then rebuilt with an experienced manager with a track record of promotion of a budget. Funnily enough this is what SISU are doing now, maybe I'm using 20/20 hindsight, but that more careful strategy always seemed better to me than buying instant success.

I agree.

And we see time and time again, much as with new managers, the same circles happening.

New owner comes in, gives some cash, fans happy.

Things don't quite go to plan, fans murmur discontent.

Investors want their cash back, funding stops - fans up in arms looking for the next lot to rinse and repeat.

If you're lucky, things *do* go to plan and you get a bump. The problem is financial investors looking to the short term won't use that to grow a club, they'll use it to... take their return. And that's the problem with modern football, it's a never ending cycle unless you're lucky enough to get the Man City type owner, or a Peter Coates (that too is fraught with danger however, as Eddie Davies is showing about now!)

It's why we have to be *very cautious indeed* whenever SISU *do* bog off that we don't repeat the same. The movement towards Haskell, however, fills me with great concern that lessons haven't been learned.

I saw a Turkish consortium were looking to buy Crawley. How on earth has football in this country got to a stage where a group of investors from turkey are front runners to buy Crawley?!?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Oh, as an aside this season's strategy worries me more than when we used the youth graduates in terms of we seem to be looking for instant success this season in terms of loanees and veterans, rather than growing the club by bringing through youngsters and players from a lower level. (I'd rather we invested in a sodding ground, too!)

My concern again is what happens if we don't get said instant success!

 

[dongonzalos]

Ranson is a hero as he is seen as anti sisu.....

I like the concept of buying the best young talent on 4 year contracts. Developing them for two years then selling them on for a profit. Also developing from your own academy and doing similar.

I don't think we ever did the process correctly either selling too cheaply or allowing contracts to run down. Also we wouldn't adequately replace either.

I don't agree that SISU could have came in and got us relegated straight away clearing out the squad.
Most were very annoyed when it eventually happened. If it happened straight away our expectations were on a quick return to the Prem there would have been uproar.

Also I agree with the way SISU are backing the manager this season.
Just hope if we get to the championship they can do it there.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I like the concept of buying the best young talent on 4 year contracts. Developing them for two years then selling them on for a profit. Also developing from your own academy and doing similar.

That's fine as a general principle. I wouldn't do it at the expense of the infrastructure around the club however, as that infrastructure allows you to grow the club to do the playing policy more effectively, and not to be so dependent on results on the pitch.

A good club may have a bad season, but will be able to recover. A bad club (Blackpool!) can have a good season, but it won't mask the underlying issues forever.

 

[olderskyblue]

Ranson did *not* want the Ricoh, but you resort to childish immature posts to defend the fact that you're... wrong

Ahem, from August 2009

the first step in his strategy to eventually take up the option of a 50 per cent stake in the Arena. Although the objective of Ricoh Arena ownership is still on Ranson’s personal radar, together with a Premiership placing within two to three years, his determined but understated style is to quietly progress discussions behind the scenes with the stakeholders in the Arena who are very much aware that 50 per cent ownership and eventually total acquisition of the stadium in the longer term is very much on the Chairman’s wish list.

He wanted half of it at least.. ;-)