acl v sisu (ccfc) (2 Viewers)

TommyAtkins · Jan 3, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
That's quite probably the case, dear chap. But why wasn't this lack of forward viability picked up during SISU's due diligence? And of so profoundly obvious, why not renegotiated at that point, or SISU walk away?

And given Fisher's own figures cite a £41m loss in five years; even if 'the club' do achieve a deal, how do they then become viable? As even existing rent free and with match-day income, we'd have accrued huge losses anyway.

If you believe Fisher's figures, the difference between us paying a huge rent (as is), or no rent is only the difference between us losing an enormous amount and a gargantuan amount.

SISU were given shares for a promise of a better tomorrow. Now it appears even if they get the Ricoh, the figures still don't add up. What next? Do they want the cathedral?

And a Happy New Year to you also.....long time no chat

Our prime concern now should be the future of Coventry City Football Club and that means an agreement over the stadium must be reached.

I think if you look back, Ranson made the point that the stadium must be acquired (in some form).However, the evidence indicates that Ranson was trusted by SISU and Ranson decided to prioritise the playing staff over the stadium - with the limited funds available. That indicates that due diligence was performed and perhaps too much reliance was placed on fans coming back in droves.

Remember Ranson's repeated message about a breakeven attendance.

The simple truth is that SISU's initial investment was not enough to repair the damage at CCFC.

Looking forward, however, not back, Coventry will never have a chance of surviving as a football club until it secures a home

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 3, 2013

TommyAtkins said:
Looking forward, however, not back, Coventry will never have a chance of surviving as a football club until it secures a home

I think in that regard we're singing from the same hymn-sheet, but with a difference of opinion thereafter. SISU's own figures show us still hemorrhaging money - even if we did have free rent and match-day income.

What I fail to see - moving forward - is the balance of the plan to bring viability back to the club. That's the bit I'm missing.

What I would hate if for SISU to have had the shares (sorry for the briefest of backward glances), and then to get the Ricoh on the cheap, and still not be viable!?!

hamil99 · Jan 3, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
"Then you get idiots like OSB droning on and on and on how SiSU "saved" the club - trouble is, the only reason the club was saved with 30 minutes to go,"

meanwhile in the real world ........ i think you will discover it very hard to find i have ever said anything of the sort. But then actually reading what is written would seem to be a problem for you

The posting above is more supportive of ACL if anything.

You will also find that i was alerting people as to what was going on way before you had any form of joined up financial thinking.

"So please spare us your "wisened" words""............ At least I have some words perhaps considered wise chap ......... but you? well thats quite another matter :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

seems some things never change ............. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

To true and well said good sir.

Godiva · Jan 3, 2013

TommyAtkins said:
I think if you look back, Ranson made the point that the stadium must be acquired (in some form).However, the evidence indicates that Ranson was trusted by SISU and Ranson decided to prioritise the playing staff over the stadium - with the limited funds available. That indicates that due diligence was performed and perhaps too much reliance was placed on fans coming back in droves.

From the FAQ 3 in the finance section:

Godiva said:
This is what Ranson said about the vision after he first became chairman:
We want to gain financial stability and a platform to achieve the clubs commercial and sporting aspirations, which is promotion to the Premiership followed by repurchase of a 50% share in the Ricoh Arena home.

There’s a plan in there, a step by step layout
First we get the losses under control
Then we will become strong enough to gain promotion
Finally we will buy half the stadium

TommyAtkins · Jan 3, 2013

Godiva said:
From the FAQ 3 in the finance section:

As I thought, thanks

oldskyblue58 · Jan 3, 2013

wasnt a very good plan though or even thorough due diligence because

a) it was a gamble
b) shortly after gaining control it became evident that unforseen costs had arisen apparently
c) poor financial control - failing to match wages to turnover for example
d) half the freehold wasnt for sale only half the shares in ACL which gave no access to income for the forseeable future
e) we have made £33m+ in losses to 31/05/11 since they came in - hardly getting things under control
f) didnt recognise that costs needed to be challenged (rent, rates wages etc)

so apart from that and a few other things he planned it really well.

Godiva · Jan 3, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
wasnt a very good plan though or even thorough due diligence because

a) it was a gamble
b) shortly after gaining control it became evident that unforseen costs had arisen apparently
c) poor financial control - failing to match wages to turnover for example
d) half the freehold wasnt for sale only half the shares in ACL which gave no access to income for the forseeable future
e) we have made £33m+ in losses to 31/05/11 since they came in - hardly getting things under control
f) didnt recognise that costs needed to be challenged (rent, rates wages etc)

so apart from that and a few other things he planned it really well.

Very true ...
And because of that he's gone ...

oldskyblue58 · Jan 3, 2013

wasnt the only one involved in the "investment" though was he..........

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 3, 2013

Godiva said:
Very true ...
And because of that he's gone ...

I don't think he was the one who forgot the principle of caveat emptor though. His employers were, and legally carry the can for doing so. It really was truly reckless. In fact, there was no 'diligence' in the 'due diligence' at all. It was just 'due'.

OSB58: do you agree with my reading of the situation that even with free rent / match-day income, there's still not a viable plan behind it all? Or, at least not one that we've been availed of. And therefore this 'average League One rental' line just spin?

sky blue zam · Jan 3, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
That's quite probably the case, dear chap. But why wasn't this lack of forward viability picked up during SISU's due diligence? And of so profoundly obvious, why not renegotiated at that point, or SISU walk away?

And given Fisher's own figures cite a £41m loss in five years; even if 'the club' do achieve a deal, how do they then become viable? As even existing rent free and with match-day income, we'd have accrued huge losses anyway.

If you believe Fisher's figures, the difference between us paying a huge rent (as is), or no rent is only the difference between us losing an enormous amount and a gargantuan amount.

SISU were given shares for a promise of a better tomorrow. Now it appears even if they get the Ricoh, the figures still don't add up. What next? Do they want the cathedral?

well we got one to spare, lol

oldskyblue58 · Jan 3, 2013

it is just spin MMM in my opinion. There is a plan but it isnt anything to do with the rent and creating a viable club as a priority.

My understanding is that the rent savings and additional incomes were built into the budgets from the off and we are still heading for a £3m + loss ........ not my idea of a viable business, because it simply relies on more and more debt without generating sufficient cash to operate

so i am not going to disagree with you MMM

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 3, 2013

It truly is beyond me. They bought the club at a time it was closer to a League One club that a Premier League club, but never factored in the deleterious financial aspects of relegation. They overlooked some huge issues in the DD process.

The season before we went down, we finished 18th; then lose King, Turner, Westwood and Gunnarsson from the squad, then cap it by selling our leading score in the January window.

Now apparently are floundering like a beetle on it's back. There must be an 'end game' I simply can't see it!?!

coundonskyblue · Jan 3, 2013

What percentage would you say the £33m loss is due to rent & no matchday income?

stupot07 · Jan 3, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
I agree a fair deal should be put in place ......... thats a deal fair to both sides. SISU have every right to challenge the current rent but ACL have as much right to demand a proper return. BUT it is not about the rent in the first place

Sustainable future ............ So the way to do that is to set out a business plan that relies on not paying known debts yet paying more wages out than the club has money to pay even without paying the rent....... and expect £3m+ in operational losses. Only one way that is heading....... and it isnt towards a sustainable future

As you say facts can be inconvenient

Sorry OSB at this point in time that is an opinion not a fact.

Re: wages, we've just been relegated from a higher division where the average wage is x3 that of league one, I would expect us to have one of the highest wages bills, unfortunately unlike the relegated premier clubs we don't get at parachute payments.

http://soccerlens.com/finance-in-english-football-wage-disparities-between-the-divisions/92692/

If we don't go up this season, our wage bill will be trimmed again and the target operating losses reduced. It takes time.

Forest had been operating with a loss of £12m per annum.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...hat-the-future-is-the-derby-way-6329938.html

lordsummerisle · Jan 3, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I don't think he was the one who forgot the principle of caveat emptor though. His employers were, and legally carry the can for doing so. It really was truly reckless. In fact, there was no 'diligence' in the 'due diligence' at all. It was just 'due'.

OSB58: do you agree with my reading of the situation that even with free rent / match-day income, there's still not a viable plan behind it all? Or, at least not one that we've been availed of. And therefore this 'average League One rental' line just spin?

I expect it was all Steve Waggot's fault.

Ranson blameless as ever, along with Playdough Joe, the ever pliable.

oldskyblue58 · Jan 3, 2013

I agree Stupot it is an opinion.......... i dont claim my postings as anything else unless i am discussing published documents or figures from a proper source. Doesnt actually make me wrong though

Our wage bill isnt just a product of relegation.......... we have the biggest squad too, and that is a decision made by the board to do so especially having brought in something like 14 players so far. Yes it takes time but our playing squad compared to last year is very different and decisions have been made to spend money the club has not got (rely on SISU ).

that it is trimmed further next year if not promoted is your opinion

Godiva · Jan 3, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
I agree Stupot it is an opinion.......... i dont claim my postings as anything else unless i am discussing published documents or figures from a proper source. Doesnt actually make me wrong though

Our wage bill isnt just a product of relegation.......... we have the biggest squad too, and that is a decision made by the board to do so especially having brought in something like 14 players so far. Yes it takes time but our playing squad compared to last year is very different and decisions have been made to spend money the club has not got (rely on SISU ).

that it is trimmed further next year if not promoted is your opinion

Lol - it's required according to FFP though.

oldskyblue58 · Jan 3, 2013

Godiva said:
Lol - it's required according to FFP though.

but the size of it depends if the turnover is the same or less or whether it is a smaller percentage of a bigger number.......... which of course we dont know yet

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 3, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
I expect it was all Steve Waggot's fault.

Good call. Many thanks for recalibrating my blame-o-meter. It's been errant this morning you know.

Sick Boy · Jan 3, 2013

The appointment of Coleman was probably Ranson's downfall. I have often wondered how different it could have been if we had gone for Nigel Pearson instead, I seem to remember there was outrage at the prospect of him being appointed.

wingy · Jan 3, 2013

I did'nt really get why Dowie could'nt have took us to seasons end.

Sick Boy · Jan 3, 2013

wingy said:
I did'nt really get why Dowie could'nt have took us to seasons end.

Probably because he wasn't a yes man.

Coleman should have gone after the defeat at Charlton.

lordsummerisle · Jan 3, 2013

Sick Boy said:
Probably because he wasn't a yes man.

Coleman should have gone after the defeat at Charlton.

Our loss was Wales gain.

Bit of a win/win situation really, and not something that often happened under Coleman.

wingy · Jan 3, 2013

Sick Boy said:
Probably because he wasn't a yes man.

Coleman should have gone after the defeat at Charlton.

God don't remind me.

GaryPendrysEyes · Jan 3, 2013

Good thread. I dont think there is any doubt that Sisu didnt look at due diligence or indeed risk enough. Probably because they look at short term investments, and were looking to get out in two or three years after some positive improvements/marketing.
When they got confronted with dropping league position and gates, they flapped about wasting more money on new execs, managers and players. Probably wasting the money that could have saved us from relegation, if they had more focus. After relegation, they were [and are] in crisis- the AT fiasco over the summer wasted more money and probably demonstrated the disarray they were in.
As a number have said they dont seem to have a viable long term plan, I guess they are seeing how this season goes re the arena and MR; with little or no further investment available. But they aint gonna continue to bleed money for years more are they....

wingy · Jan 3, 2013

They really should have picked the Club up after admin,that first £11M. of their investment was wasted.

Their subsequent punt and shorterm minimal investment on players ,followed by chasing their losses since ,around 80% of their investment was negative Equity.

acl v sisu (ccfc) (2 Viewers)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Facebook User

Well-Known Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency