oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Can they persuade the appeal court that the judge got the law wrong ?
Court Match Thread (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
100% my main worry.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Hmmmm
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Was it you that did the witches hat?
Astute
Well-Known Member
It was never intimidation with serious claims. It was claims against those not rich enough to fight back. As in battering with court. But they took on someone much bigger than usual this time. And CCC seemed to have treble checked every step of the way.
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Perhaps he thought it was his neck?
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
You know what I mean NW, there not about to surrender to SISU through lack
Of funds:emoji_relaxed:
Calista
Well-Known Member
Yes, Fisher said it not only to the Guardian but to the stadium group. If the Council flogged the Ricoh for £30 million less than it was worth, why were CCFC terrified of a half share of the £14m loan?
Minutes of the Stadium Forum Committee, 21st January 2015
TF was asked whether the club could buy 50% of the Ricoh. TF said that it is unlikely that a deal can be done re a share of the ownership of the Stadium with Wasps. TF confirmed that the club’s owners and Directors are not prepared to take on the risk of financial liability for half of the £14 million loan.
And why, when bidding for the Higgs share later, did CCFC only match the preferred bidder (Wasps) rather than trumping them with a significantly bigger amount and putting the charity on the spot? We needed that half share, yet we didn't even make a serious attempt. If the stadium was being massively undersold as is now claimed, surely there was plenty of scope to go higher?
Maybe I’m dumb, but SISU constantly seem to undermine their own case.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Spot on again.
I think you're alright now Astute ;-)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Yes it should be, but this pointless pursuit of legal action is a distraction. The again lack of communication from the owners to the fans about their business plan and what they are trying to achieve is bound to fuel suspicion and speculation.
They could have justified a lot of things to the fans, the fact is they haven't. Which makes me think their song sheet is very different to ours.
It is obvious fans will hold the club dear to their hearts. It is less obvious to give money to these hapless incompetents....without them offering a realistic business plan for the future.
The apparent summers rebuilding was a perfect platform for SISU to engage the fans. Another glaring opportunity missed. Which leaves me believing their minds and true agenda lies elsewhere. Just when I was rekindling some faith they have washed it away.
Astute
Well-Known Member
They never came to our club to make us happy. They came to make money. And they don't care how they make it. The problem is that they didn't have a clue about football. And they have been chasing their tail ever since.
But whatever way you look at it they are not 100% to blame. We were in the shit when they took over. Massively in debt and renting a ground that we couldn't afford. The rest of it is down to how you interpret it. There are plenty on the blame list. Nobody comes out well. But they are in the spotlight as they are presently with us.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Not changed my views. Maybe mellowing out with age
:smuggrin:
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
They also have no clue about business or the law. That's why SISU Capital has turned in such woeful financial figures.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I couldn't get to the match yesterday, please could someone post some ratings?
I get the feeling from another thread that Gilbert might have been contender for MOTM!
I get the feeling from another thread that Gilbert might have been contender for MOTM!
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Hobo
Well-Known Member
But they are not making money, they are a failing business, even in their pomp they weren't that rich. Yes we were a basket case and in the shit but it was retrievable. They have compounded the situation and missed countless opportunities to salvage the situation. The worst thing they have done is to erode and split the fan base.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Who said they are making money?
Rich? It isn't their money they have been losing.
I have said that they have made the situation worse. But it is not all down to them. We were losing over half a million a month when they took over. It was never going to be easy.
The division between the supporters isn't the worse thing they have done. To me it is losing the chance of ownership of the Ricoh. If they hadn't tried to get it for next to nothing to maximise their profits it could now be with our club. But you can't guarantee that.
Irish Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
We were hours from going into administration before they "saved" us. Knowing what I know now I would take administration every time if it meant we escaped their clutches. I disagree. Every misfortune that we have suffered since they took over can be traced back to their incompetence. CCC have not covered themselves in glory with regard to CCFC. However when having to deal with Sisu I can understand why they have done what they have done. Wasps are a franchise team. They shouldn't be here. If it wasn't for the Northampton debacle they wouldn't be. Can't be bothered to go through the Sisu list of crimes against CCFC. We all know them off by heart. From my point of view the "Too Blame" list since Sisu took over only has one name on it and that is Sisu themselves.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
It's proportionately for me in the blame game. Recent times ......
SISU 80%
Council and Higgs 20%
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
I don't know....The rest you can kinda sort out in a black/white sorta way but splitting the fans has been proper shitty
Astute
Well-Known Member
Nothing I haven't said in the past.
But as you said 'since'. Why were we about to go into administration? We have been badly run for years. We had been badly run for many years before SISU. Were they just supposed to cover our losses forever and pay too much for the arena? Are all those before them now in the clear because we have SISU to blame now?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Of course it has. But we can have our good days like at Wembley and all get on. A good day at Wembley doesn't get us a home though. And the future of our club is at stake without a home.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Which was the first real warning sign that they had no idea what they were doing,
The lack of "Due Diligence" before acquiring the club was staggering.
Anything that followed which could be viewed as unfair on the club would have
Little merit because they blindly got involved, the rest is history.
Or in our case "Horrible History"
Astute
Well-Known Member
It was good in theory.
Get us back into the Prem.
Get given endless millions for being there.
Buy the arena on the cheap.
Get about half a million in ticket sales each home game.
What could possibly go wrong?
Esoterica
Well-Known Member
That's because our fans love someone who runs around a lot and is active on social media above any actual talent.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I love you Esoterica :kiss:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I agree a lot of parties played a part in this and contributed to the whole situation. We should never have got to the situation in 2007/08. That was not SISU's doing. That fault lies with previous owners and the likes of CCC
Once there in 2007 early 2008 then it can only be the needs of those in control of the club that stopped what should have happened - administration. That SISU did not conduct the purchase in what I would have thought were the best practices (eg full due diligence) is a decision SISU made. Having been involved in such things the first thing you look at is the costs, for a football club the primary ones are wages and the stadium. The effect of both has in my opinion been handled poorly. In 2008 SISU were in a position of strength to set the future of the club and frankly failed the test. The thinking, as it has continued to this day, was short termism. No real plan became apparent, they made it up as they went along based of the prospect of a quick return Premiership riches.
From 2008 on I think in terms of the current finances and "investment" in the playing side then that fault is squarely the responsibility of SISU. Their thinking was not driven by CCFC but by their investors. The premise was a short term gain in the Premiership promotion, the reality complete failure on so many levels it is hard to count them. The owners have taken actions to "protect" their investment that have laden CCFC with debt or pseudo debt, their choice and to be honest they have a right to do this if they choose. They failed to adequately address the costs. There were income opportunities they failed to take. They eroded the asset base by not addressing the costs of the business.
The people appointed have been to large degree failures who made the whole thing worse, but did they get the backing? Were they allowed and backed to make the big or strategic decisions or was that all down to the owners? Responsibility I feel lays with the owners, the buck stops with SISU
In 2008 when SISU came in despite poor due diligence the slate had pretty much been wiped clean financially. Those debts that remained the football club was expected to trade out of and £6m of the £8.4m net debt taken on eventually got written off when former directors loans were not repaid. The biggest single thing they got wrong in 2008 was not dealing with the stadium, and that was because they didn't expect to be here very long, so it would be someone else's problem.
In business you have to make decisions for your company within the confines of conditions set externally, SISU, CCFC, Otium are no different and are not unusual. What started out as a poorly funded and planned excursion in to football was made worse by what seems to be SISU's natural state of mind - arrogant confrontation. It turns out that when dealing with a football club that is completely the wrong attitude and couple that with knee jerk, poor planning and an unwillingness to accept or own responsibility it equals failure and near disaster. They have forged very few partnerships and those they have dwindled away. They could despite the actions of others have carried the fans with them but totally failed to engage and effectively drove the club life blood away. There were deals to be done, deals that could have led to better deals in time, we got muddled thinking and confrontation - not just from SISU though to be fair.
It is no good the owners saying everyone was plotting against them, they were just as guilty of plotting behind the scenes as anyone else, arguably more so.
Are entities like CCC, FL, FA also to blame at least in part, certainly. They all had their own agendas, but the SISU attitude of" our way or no way" failed to engage with those agendas to create a win win for all concerned. Did CCC make mistakes certainly they did, the biggest of which was the type and cost of the original lease. That cut off options, made the financial situation worse (it didn't create it). But the problem CCC created was known in 2008 and never dealt with even close to adequately. The limitations were known by the club but never addressed not least because of the owners negotiation and management style ensured growing alienation
I don't doubt there were all sorts of dealings going on behind the scenes, it is often how Councils work, but you have to play the game, and it is clear there was dealings going on at the club and their owners also. They were all at it. There should be no great shock, surprise or angst in that, it is how a lot of business operates whether it involves councils or not - that's a simple reality. It is an issue brought up to avoid taking responsibility for what really matters
There had to be partnerships created by all concerned, instead we got ego, confrontation, piss poor planning and a total erosion of trust. The rent was high yes, too high, but exclude it entirely and at what point since 2008 would you say that CCFC was a stable solvent business in the real not football world? Yes CCFC should have a better deal on the stadium incomes, but they had sold that and didn't have the means or intention to buy it back - surely SISU could have found funds to buy the Charity out in 2008?. Football clubs in general often have the attitude that they are owed something by the rest of the community - why, when the rest of the community often keeps them afloat in the first place? Engagement not confrontation is key to running a successful football club, owners might not agree with other parties like councils or even trust them but they have to forge partnerships with them where both sides feel they have achieved - it is essential. Disagree by all means but find a compromise to move forward
You cannot blame SISU for how CCFC arrived at 2007/08. For the last 9 years, there have been a lot of parties involved in CCFC demise, but only one party makes the decisions for CCFC within the framework created by all. It seems very few of those decisions were, well thought out, clear or benefitted CCFC.
Once there in 2007 early 2008 then it can only be the needs of those in control of the club that stopped what should have happened - administration. That SISU did not conduct the purchase in what I would have thought were the best practices (eg full due diligence) is a decision SISU made. Having been involved in such things the first thing you look at is the costs, for a football club the primary ones are wages and the stadium. The effect of both has in my opinion been handled poorly. In 2008 SISU were in a position of strength to set the future of the club and frankly failed the test. The thinking, as it has continued to this day, was short termism. No real plan became apparent, they made it up as they went along based of the prospect of a quick return Premiership riches.
From 2008 on I think in terms of the current finances and "investment" in the playing side then that fault is squarely the responsibility of SISU. Their thinking was not driven by CCFC but by their investors. The premise was a short term gain in the Premiership promotion, the reality complete failure on so many levels it is hard to count them. The owners have taken actions to "protect" their investment that have laden CCFC with debt or pseudo debt, their choice and to be honest they have a right to do this if they choose. They failed to adequately address the costs. There were income opportunities they failed to take. They eroded the asset base by not addressing the costs of the business.
The people appointed have been to large degree failures who made the whole thing worse, but did they get the backing? Were they allowed and backed to make the big or strategic decisions or was that all down to the owners? Responsibility I feel lays with the owners, the buck stops with SISU
In 2008 when SISU came in despite poor due diligence the slate had pretty much been wiped clean financially. Those debts that remained the football club was expected to trade out of and £6m of the £8.4m net debt taken on eventually got written off when former directors loans were not repaid. The biggest single thing they got wrong in 2008 was not dealing with the stadium, and that was because they didn't expect to be here very long, so it would be someone else's problem.
In business you have to make decisions for your company within the confines of conditions set externally, SISU, CCFC, Otium are no different and are not unusual. What started out as a poorly funded and planned excursion in to football was made worse by what seems to be SISU's natural state of mind - arrogant confrontation. It turns out that when dealing with a football club that is completely the wrong attitude and couple that with knee jerk, poor planning and an unwillingness to accept or own responsibility it equals failure and near disaster. They have forged very few partnerships and those they have dwindled away. They could despite the actions of others have carried the fans with them but totally failed to engage and effectively drove the club life blood away. There were deals to be done, deals that could have led to better deals in time, we got muddled thinking and confrontation - not just from SISU though to be fair.
It is no good the owners saying everyone was plotting against them, they were just as guilty of plotting behind the scenes as anyone else, arguably more so.
Are entities like CCC, FL, FA also to blame at least in part, certainly. They all had their own agendas, but the SISU attitude of" our way or no way" failed to engage with those agendas to create a win win for all concerned. Did CCC make mistakes certainly they did, the biggest of which was the type and cost of the original lease. That cut off options, made the financial situation worse (it didn't create it). But the problem CCC created was known in 2008 and never dealt with even close to adequately. The limitations were known by the club but never addressed not least because of the owners negotiation and management style ensured growing alienation
I don't doubt there were all sorts of dealings going on behind the scenes, it is often how Councils work, but you have to play the game, and it is clear there was dealings going on at the club and their owners also. They were all at it. There should be no great shock, surprise or angst in that, it is how a lot of business operates whether it involves councils or not - that's a simple reality. It is an issue brought up to avoid taking responsibility for what really matters
There had to be partnerships created by all concerned, instead we got ego, confrontation, piss poor planning and a total erosion of trust. The rent was high yes, too high, but exclude it entirely and at what point since 2008 would you say that CCFC was a stable solvent business in the real not football world? Yes CCFC should have a better deal on the stadium incomes, but they had sold that and didn't have the means or intention to buy it back - surely SISU could have found funds to buy the Charity out in 2008?. Football clubs in general often have the attitude that they are owed something by the rest of the community - why, when the rest of the community often keeps them afloat in the first place? Engagement not confrontation is key to running a successful football club, owners might not agree with other parties like councils or even trust them but they have to forge partnerships with them where both sides feel they have achieved - it is essential. Disagree by all means but find a compromise to move forward
You cannot blame SISU for how CCFC arrived at 2007/08. For the last 9 years, there have been a lot of parties involved in CCFC demise, but only one party makes the decisions for CCFC within the framework created by all. It seems very few of those decisions were, well thought out, clear or benefitted CCFC.
Last edited:
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
The thing is sisu never intended to run a football club. They were told by Ranson give me x money for a club and I'll give you x money in return when I get it promoted. When Ranson realised he fucked up with Coleman and went to sisu for more cash they said no and he ran away. That's when sisu were forced to take over day to day running and they hadn't a scooby how to do it.
Agree with that. Up until this day this continues. JS arriving at the court looking wrecked with unwashed straggly hair and Rohdri being asked basic questions- such as what are they actually complaining about -, Rohdri asking if the costs are with or without VAT, the case not properly prepared, amendments made too late to apply etc. It is as shocking as the incomplete due diligence at the beginning of SISU's tenure. They have learnt nothing. It is remarkable that people invest money in this obviously incompetent hedge fund. Our demise is a result of sheer incompetence over a 10 year period.
Yes, of course others make mistakes or share some blame, but SISU stand out from the crowd as a really amateurish organisation.
Despite everything that is going on, I was most surprised by Joy's appearance. I would have thought that she would have gone in looking as professional as she could. She is representing investors' wealth. Probably she is in charge of millions. She looked as someone would collecting the milk bottles from the doorstep after a night on the town.
Yes, of course others make mistakes or share some blame, but SISU stand out from the crowd as a really amateurish organisation.
Despite everything that is going on, I was most surprised by Joy's appearance. I would have thought that she would have gone in looking as professional as she could. She is representing investors' wealth. Probably she is in charge of millions. She looked as someone would collecting the milk bottles from the doorstep after a night on the town.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
And as I've said time and again... Ranson was making £20m ready to take the Football Club forward... What happened to it?
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
We were losing £500k a month. It was swallowed up by running costs and wages. Just because we didn't spend £20m on transfers doesn't mean £20m didn't go into the club.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Do you mean the couple of thousand for the perimeter fencing, and the £500k remortgage on Ryton, and the £5-75p for painting ryton?... Show me where £20m was spent then!... And don't forget this "Promise by Ranson was made on takeover of the Club"
One more thing... How could we be losing £500k per month if we were "One of only 3-4 Football Clubs in the FL that are Debt free"..(Ranson's words not mine!)
Last edited: