ADMIN NIGHTMARE GATHERING PACE - who's next ??? (1 Viewer)

Forest...possibly. Apparently there is a meeting this week with those sorting out the estate of Forest's owner Paul Doherty who dropped dead last week. It is said he has loaned up to a £100 million to them and the rest of the family weren't too happy about it, in fact he resigned as chairman earlier this season it is said because or family pressure. Only need to find one more club in the shite and we are safe !

Jonny "Nostradamus "Ricoh Lol you got over the time lag yet

While Sky revenues and income may be on the slide ,their influence only seems to gather monumental stature and pace ,recently agreed a deal with the prem which competes with what fifa can obtain for the world cup ,they are the game wreckers supreme.

well at least won't happen to us, we are far too well run a club.

This is nothing new, the Football authorities have been addressing the problem, albeit at a very slow pace.

The FOREST situation makes you think that without that £100 Million they'd have gone under and with it they haven't really done as well as perhaps they should have.
We talk about being able to turn things around with £30M, - think again.

wingy said:

While Sky revenues and income may be on the slide ,their influence only seems to gather monumental stature and pace ,recently agreed a deal with the prem which competes with what fifa can obtain for the world cup ,they are the game wreckers supreme.

Click to expand...

Thing is if the Sky revenues drop then the top table Premier League clubs will only push harder to get their slice of the worldwide revenues they don't currently get their grubby mits on.

With players like Beckham, Henry and Keane coming back on loan I certainly wouldn't rule out an Indian Premier League scenario for football in the future either.

May already be up and running LG ,think i saw something a week or so back where certain oldtime players were being auctioned ,and you're right theres definately an appetite with some to negotiate their own worldwide rights.

Shit you're right there, think it was Fowler (might have been on Soccer AM) going on about about some chinese league. :facepalm:

The authorities should have addressed this a long time ago.

The fundamental flaw is that we have a league system, not a franchise system. If you get relegated, then you lose money; therefore you have to spend money to keep up; but if you get relegated anyway, it's with a truckload of debts and a loss of revenue.

Financial Fairplay rules are a step in the right direction. Impose fiscal discipline on clubs, limit squad numbers to encourage more player swaps than spending, etc.

I admit nearly everyone on here saw SISU were bad for our club before I saw it myself. I was looking at how much debt other clubs as well as ours were carrying. We were doing something about it. They were not. SISU seemed to take it too far though. Now I am not sure again :thinking about: There will be more clubs in the brown stuff than we know. We are not perfect, but at least we seem to be more steady than most teams at the moment. If all other clubs have to go through what we have been through we will have a good short term future. Players will be paid much less. We will be able to afford decent players again and they will want to come to us as they know they will get paid.

Before you shout me down I have not suddenly become pro SISU. Just ask the Forest and Portsmouth fans where they would prefer their clubs to be. They are not the only clubs either.

I dont have a problem with the fundamental idea of balancing the books by controlling costs - I think it is essential. The problem I have is how SISU have operated that control and communicated their "plan" to the fans. Dealing with the calamitous state of CCFC finances was always going to be a rough ride for whoever had the guts to make the tough decisions.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing - SISU needed to have grasped the financial nettle as soon as they came in, instead they remained silent and let others take a different direction with their tacit approval, then meddled sat on fence let things drift and ultimately failed to date. Had they said in 2007 that they had to sell players, cut wages and costs, it might mean relegation but we would aim to bounce back from a strong financial position then three things may have resulted. (1) we might actually be financially stronger now (2) SISU might have had something to sell at a profit (3) the fans may have understood what was going on (might not have liked it but might have understood and supported it)

There is going to have to be a real shake up of football finances. Bottomless money pits from the middle east or Russia are few and far between. The current financial models are simply not sustainable. Whilst I would not wish it on any club especially CCFC I do think it is going to take a series of big clubs in England going into administration or worse for people to sit up and take the issue seriously. There comes a time when borrowings have to be repaid, there comes a time when debts have to be repaid and football is not a special case that sits outside of that.

SISU might see that but how they have chosen to operate our club gives me no confidence in them or their Boards - time SISU were gone. Time CCFC was run properly - but more of the same old failed principles wont do GH. There is an opportunity here to lead the way, as has happened before under Jimmy Hill etc we might even be ahead of the game in some ways but there is a price. Would be interested to know what the long term plans are for SISU or GH in respect of CCFC. Will be interested to see what the general football finances are like in 3 or 4 years time

I suspect SISU didn't go for financial control initially because.
1) Ray Ranson convinced them he could gain promotion by investment
2) Most other clubs in the division were overspending, they didn't want instant demotion
3) There was no guarantee at that time fair play rules were going to be imposed or clarity of what they would mean
4) They started RR's plan before the banking crisis took hold

Even in 4 years circumstances changed.

well, we.should be thankful that at lest we are not in that position. Unless SISU do pull the plug.

Jack Griffin said:

I suspect SISU didn't go for financial control initially because.
1) Ray Ranson convinced them he could gain promotion by investment
2) Most other clubs in the division were overspending, they didn't want instant demotion
3) There was no guarantee at that time fair play rules were going to be imposed or clarity of what they would mean
4) They started RR's plan before the banking crisis took hold

Even in 4 years circumstances changed.

Click to expand...

Hear what you say Jack but any business needs to know and control its costs no matter what the general economic conditions or changing circumstances. They took their eye off the ball and gave themselves a mess to deal with in some respects. SISU are specialists in turning round ailing businesses (largely by cutting costs and waste) and they ignored that specialism because it was a football club - a mistake that i would think they very much regret

oldskyblue58 said:

Hear what you say Jack but any business needs to know and control its costs no matter what the general economic conditions or changing circumstances. They took their eye off the ball and gave themselves a mess to deal with in some respects. SISU are specialists in turning round ailing businesses (largely by cutting costs and waste) and they ignored that specialism because it was a football club - a mistake that i would think they very much regret

Click to expand...

In my mind their biggest mistake was to have Ranson running the show and holding a substantial amount of shares at the same time. It's the way investors normally operate, I know, but when Ranson failed to stay within budgets he was very difficult to get rid of as sisu did not hold a special account for that purpose. As it turned out - the only way to part with Ranson was to let the club run out of money.

You can compare Sisu with banks - they don't hold expertise to front the operation they have money in. That job they leave to 'the professionels', which I don't think this is a mistake or the wrong way to do it. It got messy a year ago because Ranson held about 18% of the shares and wouldn't step down freely.

Is it not against the Law to carry on trading if you are Insolvent?

Regards.

Actually they could have just sacked him as CEO and left the shares he owned where they were - we didnt have to run out of money to sack him. Only caveat to that would be the terms of any shareholder agreement. SISU controlled over 75% of the shares they could have had an emergency general meeting (EGM) and voted him off.

SISU were a "bank" of sorts but these guys specialise in business recovery thats not a normal function of a bank. It also implies a greater involvement than a normal bank. I agree i dont think RR did a great job but the mistakes by him and SISU were from the start and both greatly contributed to the financial mess

Astute said:

I admit nearly everyone on here saw SISU were bad for our club before I saw it myself. I was looking at how much debt other clubs as well as ours were carrying. We were doing something about it. They were not. SISU seemed to take it too far though. Now I am not sure again :thinking about: There will be more clubs in the brown stuff than we know. We are not perfect, but at least we seem to be more steady than most teams at the moment. If all other clubs have to go through what we have been through we will have a good short term future. Players will be paid much less. We will be able to afford decent players again and they will want to come to us as they know they will get paid.

Before you shout me down I have not suddenly become pro SISU. Just ask the Forest and Portsmouth fans where they would prefer their clubs to be. They are not the only clubs either.

Click to expand...

True - but they may get to play Championship football next season. Due to SISU we will not.