why we are so dissatisfied with SISU and could we expect any better off new owners? (8 Viewers)

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

If you were attacked by someone wishing to take away your interest wouldn't you fight back with every avenue at your disposal?

Isn't that what ACL/Council did?

 

---

[dongonzalos]

Sorry Dongo! I neglected this thread with other distractions.

My op was not suggesting they had managed any improvement!
so I never said it and am not defending it or them!

I am trying to get over my viewpoint that the owner of a club only has certain things within their power.
eg Joy Sepela can't score goals! (but there again nor can our strikers half the time!)
Nor can she stop McGoldrick or Robbins leaving when then are offered more money elsewhere!

Basically the owner is responsible for funding, (full stop!).
Ok they also have some control over the management structure and how the funding is spent, but in an ideal situation once they have chosen their management team they would then leave all other decisions to them.

On funding there is now a ceiling (FFP) and any new owner could not do more than fund us to the full extent of FFP - which SISU already do and have said they can (and will) continue to do.

On control over the management team - they stink!
but they are still in there batting and there are signs of improvement (? ok queue chorus from the out-louts.)

I'll put forward another premise...

One of the biggest areas that they can be justifiably critisised is being late with the accounts - resulting in transfer embargoes!
Has anyone wondered why they have been persistently late? is it two or three end of year account that have been late?

I suggest one possible reason.

They may have been flirting with the "rent" problem for some time!
It is always a tricky question and they may have been facing it about accounts time for several years - do we go into admin and take the 10pt hit or do we just carry on?

If that is the reason, maybe when we are free of the £1.2m millstone it won't happen again

So SISU in or SISU out, things might be better either way.

imp:

Thanks for the reply

The choice of management if wrong is their decision.

If a chairman makes lots of bad decisions in choosing a manager. They tend to end up going. If a manager chooses or buys the wrong players they tend to get moved on.
If a player tends to make bad decisions on the pitch they tend to go.

SISU have made bad decision after bad decision after bad decision. Joy stays...... She was not hands on apparently, now she is the decisions in my opinion have got even worse!

Regarding a budget last seasons was one to relegate us.

This years was one to get us up by a clear mile. I think league one (division three) seems to be SISU's affordability zone.

Yes FFP will play a significant part next year it hasn't throughout SISU's reign.

SISU have had numerous opportunities to resolve this ACL problem. Buy half of them.

Accept a compromise rent.

Negotiate without doing underhand tactics. They chose their own route destroy ACL it seems to have been another bad decision (Joy)

With FFP rules coming in it is imperative we get the biggest attendances we can get, it is imperative we lower our rent. It is imperative we get a share of the food and beverages.

I think SISU's plan B may get us a share of a burger bought by one of 250 fans whilst we are paying a similar rent.

 

[Grendel]

Without doubt the supporters who have constantly tried every angle to justify ACL and the councils approach have contributed to the sad and sorry demise.

Most clubs supporters would have backed the clubs stance at the outset. It's cost us big time.

 

[Colin1883]

Without doubt the supporters who have constantly tried every angle to justify ACL and the councils approach have contributed to the sad and sorry demise.

Most clubs supporters would have backed the clubs stance at the outset. It's cost us big time.

So it's the fans fault?

 

[dongonzalos]

Without doubt the supporters who have constantly tried every angle to justify ACL and the councils approach have contributed to the sad and sorry demise.

Most clubs supporters would have backed the clubs stance at the outset. It's cost us big time.

SISU's decision to try and break ACL has cost us big time.

Encouraging them not to agree to the compromise and encouraging them in their stance I would have said has cost big time, if I thought for one second that SISU cared or listened to those fans who supported their stance.

They pay no attention to the fans opinions, so I can't honestly say the naive stance to encourage them on this road, that was only going to go one way, has cost us big time.

 

[stupot07]

So it's the fans fault?

To an extent yes. Ranson was clear when they took over they needed I average 22k to break even, in Sisu's first full season with investment in the squad we only averaged just one 17k. We then sold fox and Dann and people wondered why..

 

[bigfatronssba]

To an extent yes. Ranson was clear when they took over they needed I average 22k to break even, in Sisu's first full season with investment in the squad we only averaged just one 17k. We then sold fox and Dann and people wondered why..

Surely the fans get the playing team they deserve?

Why then in 2012 did we finish 23rd despite being around 14th in attendances?

Why in 2013 did the 3rd best supported team finish 15th?

 

[Samo]

Without doubt the supporters who have constantly tried every angle to justify ACL and the councils approach have contributed to the sad and sorry demise.

Most clubs supporters would have backed the clubs stance at the outset. It's cost us big time.

That's right, fans never turn on owners, they never demonstrate and try to force them out. They back thier club's owners blindly all the way. It's only us! :facepalm:

 

[stupot07]

Surely the fans get the playing team they deserve?

Why then in 2012 did we finish 23rd despite being around 14th in attendances?

Why in 2013 did the 3rd best supported team finish 15th?

Because we were paying over the odds for rent and getting feck all match day or other income from renting the Ricoh.

 

[Colin1883]

To an extent yes. Ranson was clear when they took over they needed I average 22k to break even, in Sisu's first full season with investment in the squad we only averaged just one 17k. We then sold fox and Dann and people wondered why..

When was the last time city averaged 22k?

 

[bigfatronssba]

Because we were paying over the odds for rent and getting feck all match day or other income from renting the Ricoh.

That's nothing to do with the fans though.

Its poor management of the club from top to bottom for the last 20 years.

 

[stupot07]

When was the last time city averaged 22k?

We've never average 22k. Our best average is 21.1kish. But we do need a 32k stadium

 

[stupot07]

That's nothing to do with the fans though.

Its poor management of the club from top to bottom for the last 20 years.

I agree. But my point was Ranson made it clear from the start, we needed 22k to break even. We didnt manage it so we had to sell our best players to try and minimise losses.


We can't have our cake and eat it.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

To an extent yes. Ranson was clear when they took over they needed I average 22k to break even, in Sisu's first full season with investment in the squad we only averaged just one 17k. We then sold fox and Dann and people wondered why..

Exactly, when you're losing money, you need to cut your losses, the obvious things to cut are you transfer and wage budgets but that can sometimes barely scratch the surface, so then you have to sell players - a concept some fans, somewhat ironically, fans who don't go, don't understand. Now, this isn't placing the blame at the fans, because fans go when we have a successful team or there's a positive buzz around the place - something SISU, and their predecessors, haven't given the fans - but when we, the fans, get told were losing money if we get 'x' amount of fans, and we consistently fail to reach that target, the fans bare some responsibility - nowhere near as much as other factors, but it is a contributing factor. I wouldn't say SISU have been asset stripping - as some will say - but rather cutting their losses.

We look at the clubs have bounced back up to the Championship (similar sized clubs) and beyond, have had their fans get behind the club and go to the games, we merely mustered 15k for our highest attendance of the season (not counting JPT) - Sheffield United had 17k at our midweek game in Feb!

It's only going to get worse with this 'NotOnePennyMore' nonsense - good intentions - somewhat - but that scheme will do more damage than good. When more players get sold to make up for these losses I don't expect those supporting that scheme to complain - that's how SISU will respond, we've got Christie to start.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I agree. But my point was Ranson made it clear from the start, we needed 22k to break even. We didnt manage it so we had to sell our best players to try and minimise losses.


We can't have our cake and eat it.

Why would more fans come and watch just because we have to pay the rent?

Its the clubs responsibility to put a decent team on the pitch, not ours.

As Sisu keep telling us, its a business remember.

The owner of a business is solely responsible for its fate.

 

[stupot07]

Why would more fans come and watch just because we have to pay the rent?

Its the clubs responsibility to put a decent team on the pitch, not ours.

As Sisu keep telling us, its a business remember.

The owner of a business is solely responsible for its fate.

No the clubs responsibility is to put a team on the pitch. Nowhere does it specify the word 'decent'.

I disagree that that an owner is solely responsible for its businesses fate, you only have to look at the high street and pubs to see that external forces have significant impacts on the success or failure of a business.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Why would more fans come and watch just because we have to pay the rent?

Its the clubs responsibility to put a decent team on the pitch, not ours.

As Sisu keep telling us, its a business remember.

The owner of a business is solely responsible for its fate.

Well, yes and no.

Broadly speaking, if we got sell-out crowds week in, week out, we'd be making money, therefore, we'd be in a position to spend more on transfers/pay players more, but if you're losing money, you have to sell. Or at least be in a position to gamble with your money, why do you think the big clubs can be in hundreds of millions of debt but not be any in danger of administration, because they are sustainable because they have lots of crowds and people buying merchandise etc. but we're in trouble because we don't have this.

If people were so 'passionate' they'd get up to the ground and support the team.

 

[Colin1883]

I agree. But my point was Ranson made it clear from the start, we needed 22k to break even. We didnt manage it so we had to sell our best players to try and minimise losses.











We can't have our cake and eat it.

So ranson misjudged the support of the club? ...

That doesn't make it the fans fault...

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So ranson misjudged the support of the club? ...

That doesn't make it the fans fault...

Or rather the people that actually built the ground...

SISU inherited this mess - continuing the decline and decay of CCFC - but because we had to pay rent, an absurd 1.28m, even worse, we got no revenue from our own events, it increased the number of fans that needed to turn up to break-even. We've lost c. £1.5-1.7m (very rough estimates) p/a from rent + missed monies from F&B and other streams, that isn't sustainable and of course we would've made money from keeping HR - a tragic decision.

 

[Grendel]

Why would more fans come and watch just because we have to pay the rent?

Its the clubs responsibility to put a decent team on the pitch, not ours.

As Sisu keep telling us, its a business remember.

The owner of a business is solely responsible for its fate.

If you apply that logic if the owner feels moving ground is a better approach you support it.

Fans are rightly up in arms about it. Many were silent when the rent dispute started. If sisu had broken ACL and took the ground on their terms the club would be in a far healthier state.

Many of our fans did not want that. They had other priorities.

 

[bigfatronssba]

No the clubs responsibility is to put a team on the pitch. Nowhere does it specify the word 'decent'.

I disagree that that an owner is solely responsible for its businesses fate, you only have to look at the high street and pubs to see that external forces have significant impacts on the success or failure of a business.

Ok, if they want to be successful then they have to put a decent team out.

Its a balancing act, most of the clubs promoted ahead of us in the Championship years done it on smaller crowds. The reason being they were better run.

Business is about survival. You adapt to external forces or die. Were the public at fault for the shite being sold in M&S before they got their act together?

 

[Grendel]

Ok, if they want to be successful then they have to put a decent team out.

Its a balancing act, most of the clubs promoted ahead of us in the Championship years done it on smaller crowds. The reason being they were better run.

Business is about survival. You adapt to external forces or die. Were the public at fault for the shite being sold in M&S before they got their act together?

Clubs may have done it with smaller grounds but the revenue against costs may have been better. We were losing money with 21,000 averages. Why is that do you think?

 

[bigfatronssba]

If you apply that logic if the owner feels moving ground is a better approach you support it.

Fans are rightly up in arms about it. Many were silent when the rent dispute started. If sisu had broken ACL and took the ground on their terms the club would be in a far healthier state.

Many of our fans did not want that. They had other priorities.

Why would I support that? I don't want to move grounds. As a customer I like going and watching at the Ricoh.

As CEO its up to Tim Fisher to mould the club into what its paying customers want.

Sisu 'breaking' ACL might well have been good for Sisu, but I don't trust them enough to consider it good for the club. Also if you consider it morally right for Sisu to do that, then surely the Council are equally right in bailing out ACL?

 

[bigfatronssba]

Clubs may have done it with smaller grounds but the revenue against costs may have been better. We were losing money with 21,000 averages. Why is that do you think?

20 years of mismanagement by the Club.

 

[oakey]

Clubs may have done it with smaller grounds but the revenue against costs may have been better. We were losing money with 21,000 averages. Why is that do you think?

Because a succession of owners were piling debt onto the club, not by buying players but by charging management fees and the like?
The bottom line is that CCFC have had a big enough income over the last 10 years to pay the rent and break even and be moderately successful, ie. Still mid table championship.
The fact that we haven't been is due to management incompetence.
Time for new owners. With some we might turn the corner. Without the downward spiral will accelerate.

 

[stupot07]

20 years of mismanagement by the Club.

Spot on, some of which was in response to increase fan expectation. Richardson having a punt in the late 90's.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Because a succession of owners were piling debt onto the club, not by buying players but by charging management fees and the like?
The bottom line is that CCFC have had a big enough income over the last 10 years to pay the rent and break even and be moderately successful, ie. Still mid table championship.
The fact that we haven't been is due to management incompetence.
Time for new owners. With some we might turn the corner. Without the downward spiral will accelerate.

For example, building the RICOH with no money...

 

[Grendel]

Why would I support that? I don't want to move grounds. As a customer I like going and watching at the Ricoh.

As CEO its up to Tim Fisher to mould the club into what its paying customers want.

Sisu 'breaking' ACL might well have been good for Sisu, but I don't trust them enough to consider it good for the club. Also if you consider it morally right for Sisu to do that, then surely the Council are equally right in bailing out ACL?

The point I am making is most supporters of most clubs would not give a stuff about ACL or the council. One thing would be on their agenda and that is the club. If they felt the club was being ripped off they would have took the council on and backed the club. Ours haven't. Some have desperately tried to justify the councils stance. Why? Why would they actually care about the council - why would anyone care about ACL?

When people say they wouldn't trust sisu with the ground it is ironic when you consider the present landlord has charged its tenant 8 times the average value and gets away with it. Oh and before people start blathering on about the world class venue so what? The club get nothing from that and for nearly a decade have had nothing from food revenues. It's been an absolute disgrace and yet still the same people will drag out the same arguments defending some institution that has nothing to do with the club they profess to support.

 

[Colin1883]

Or rather the people that actually built the ground...

SISU inherited this mess - continuing the decline and decay of CCFC - but because we had to pay rent, an absurd 1.28m, even worse, we got no revenue from our own events, it increased the number of fans that needed to turn up to break-even. We've lost c. £1.5-1.7m (very rough estimates) p/a from rent + missed monies from F&B and other streams, that isn't sustainable and of course we would've made money from keeping HR - a tragic decision.

You forgot xmillions for sacking managers/backroom staff, where have I exclusively blamed sisu for the state of the club? This mess could probably be traced back to the advent of the prem.

But saying that they have doubled the debt in 5.5 years

 

[stupot07]

Ok, if they want to be successful then they have to put a decent team out.

Its a balancing act, most of the clubs promoted ahead of us in the Championship years done it on smaller crowds. The reason being they were better run.

Business is about survival. You adapt to external forces or die. Were the public at fault for the shite being sold in M&S before they got their act together?

Not all promoted from the championship had smaller attendances than us...e.g Southampton and Norwich had considerably higher attendance than us and averaged around x2 than use when they were in league one.

You're right it is a balancing act. There are no right or wrong answers.

 

[oakey]

The point I am making is most supporters of most clubs would not give a stuff about ACL or the council. One thing would be on their agenda and that is the club. If they felt the club was being ripped off they would have took the council on and backed the club. Ours haven't. Some have desperately tried to justify the councils stance. Why? Why would they actually care about the council - why would anyone care about ACL?

When people say they wouldn't trust sisu with the ground it is ironic when you consider the present landlord has charged its tenant 8 times the average value and gets away with it. Oh and before people start blathering on about the world class venue so what? The club get nothing from that and for nearly a decade have had nothing from food revenues. It's been an absolute disgrace and yet still the same people will drag out the same arguments defending some institution that has nothing to do with the club they profess to support.

Grendel, this has been explained before.
Some people object on moral grounds to defaulting on a legal debt.
Other people object because they don't see how it can work without lots of trouble.
You disagree, presumably because you think it is moral to break an "unfair" rental agreement AND you think the club can win this fight without killing the club they are custodians of.
Most, I think, disagree with you.
Time will tell.

 

[bigfatronssba]

The point I am making is most supporters of most clubs would not give a stuff about ACL or the council. One thing would be on their agenda and that is the club. If they felt the club was being ripped off they would have took the council on and backed the club. Ours haven't. Some have desperately tried to justify the councils stance. Why? Why would they actually care about the council - why would anyone care about ACL?

When people say they wouldn't trust sisu with the ground it is ironic when you consider the present landlord has charged its tenant 8 times the average value and gets away with it. Oh and before people start blathering on about the world class venue so what? The club get nothing from that and for nearly a decade have had nothing from food revenues. It's been an absolute disgrace and yet still the same people will drag out the same arguments defending some institution that has nothing to do with the club they profess to support.

Well I can't speak for others, but my reasons for not supporting the clubs actions are mainly:

The club sold its rights to revenues years ago, why should they get them back for free?

The way the club has gone about it, I.e demanding rather than asking.

Also the fact that the stadium isn't the main cause of the heavy losses.

I, and I don't think anyone (baring Cllr Matron) has a problem with the club buying the ground back. I think the council should have offered it the club at a decent price, but only when the rest of the clubs problems had been sorted out.

 

[Grendel]

With fans who take the approach of the above two we frankly deserve all we get. Unless the attitude changes we will never improve regardless of ownership.

That is why many supporters (not people with my thought processes) have to accept some responsibility for the current plight.

 

[Grendel]

Grendel, this has been explained before.
Some people object on moral grounds to defaulting on a legal debt.
Other people object because they don't see how it can work without lots of trouble.
You disagree, presumably because you think it is moral to break an "unfair" rental agreement AND you think the club can win this fight without killing the club they are custodians of.
Most, I think, disagree with you.
Time will tell.

I think your talking guff about morality because I bet when we played Leon best having knowingly refused to pay his transfer fee you wouldn't have cared less. Would you?

 

[WestEndAgro]

With fans who take the approach of the above two we frankly deserve all we get. Unless the attitude changes we will never improve regardless of ownership.

That is why many supporters (not people with my thought processes) have to accept some responsibility for the current plight.

I think Grendel makes some good points here, the council have had our pants down for too long, I don't necessarily agree with the way SISU have gone about things, but something had to give !