Discussion in 'Coventry City General Chat' started by Nick, Jul 14, 2017.
But you don't believe it because it is quoted from the Telegraph. or is it only when it suits you?
Pretty sure it was Joe Elliott that said it as outgoing chairman when the SISU takeover was done rather than Ransom. Don't think he attributed the promise to coming from Ransom but coming direct from SISU IIRC.
Don't think he was even manager at the time and had been replaced by Bruce. IIRC it was when we failed to sign him on a second loan we made a bid, allegedly. Could be wrong as it was a while ago but I do remember Bruce blocking him returning on loan.
Before this goes really off track, I think what Grendel is trying to say is that the SISU have promised to pay off Coventry's debts and provide manager Iain Dowie with transfer funds of around £20m bit isn't a quote from anybody. It's a bit the CT have stuck in.
Please can anyone tell me when we'll likely know for sure if SISU are going to appeal Friday's decision (or not)? Sorry if I have missed this in the thread above....
It wasn't taken from the Coventry Telegraph.
No and it was an opinion by a journalist not an actual quote.
Still waiting for your link!
It was in all papers at the time and as I said above it was a quote directly from Joe Elliot and the way I read it it was what he was told during the takeover. Just google the quote and it comes straight up. No need to play all the silly games.
I think you'll find papers don't put words into other peoples mouths, though they often use quotes out of context and twist the meaning.
Besides the quote was in the Mail & other papers.
It's not a quote.
Even if it was (and I did ask for the link so I could see what was quoted in the article), Ranson was quick to emphasise that 'funds' included wages and agents' fees etc. Sticks clearly in my mind becaue I remember distinctly arguing to tedious death on GMK how SISU weren't that great as people thought, because they weren't going to be spending their £20mil on transfer *fees*.
Why are we even having this 'debate' anyway?!? Other than it shows it's easy to phrase things in a way that means people read / hear what they want to.
Indeed, it's water under the bridge. Time to try and move on some how.
Here's the link
Ray Ranson completes Coventry City takeover
Every paper at the time covered it with the same quote. It's not the journalist saying it.
It's the only bit not quoted!
Think you have to think of what "not being given the tools" actually means when it is given by Hoffman & Ranson as an excuse or justification.
The only tools that SISU could provide was money. Ranson was the football man brought in to run the football business (as well as part owner). The tools apparently required, largely meant the main options were to issue more shares (meaning Ranson would have had to also invest in more shares or dilute the holding he had) or SISU (or another party) had to put the money in as more debt. Either way it meant putting more money into a business that had negative operating cashflows of 2008 (7.6m) 2009 (7.7) 2010 (4.2m) 2011 (8.2m) with no real security to offer. Things were hardly improving or even going well since takeover. The club remained on a downward financial slide only stalled briefly by the owners takeover. Quick success had been the plan and it was anything but both on and off the pitch.
Isn't the logic of what went on that Ranson and others were advocating burdening the club with greater debt it simply could not afford? Isnt that how we got in to this mess previously and now?
Ranson resigned 28 March 2011. From a fairly level start financially in 2007/08 under his leadership we accumulated an operating cashflow deficit of nearly 28m. That had to be financed or go bust. During those years if you ignore the original set up investment SISU put in 25.4m according to the published accounts. That is despite player sales profits of 5.5m. What was spent on players in that period was 6.1m.
Despite that money spent (lost) there was no improvement in league performance, income levels had not improved, attendances were sliding............... all under Ranson. He then left with a repayment of capital & interest.
By 31 May 2011, only 2 months after Ranson left, the group had accumulated £34m in losses having started from zero in November 2007 (in the five years since then group losses have increased to £51m in total)
At some point any investor has to consider whether to invest more or not. SISU had failed to control their investment, failed in managing the business, in part because they entrusted it to Ranson as a well paid CEO. They chose to let that happen, so I have little sympathy for them. However the logic of that is that someone else was operating the day to day of running the business and achieving multi million pound losses despite loans/investment of £25m in just over 3 years. No I doubt SISU were easy to deal with, yes I believe SISU had final say in strategy and overall money decisions but was Ranson on the right track, was he successful in any way, or was he simply repeating the same mistakes that had created the "opportunity" for SISU in 2007
I think it is clear I have no positivity towards SISU but to exonerate others that were closely involved and instrumental in what went on is to my mind unrealistic. Just my opinion
Yup, this is often missed alas.
Ultimately it's SISU's choice who's in charge, so ultimately SISU are culpable.
Doubt anybody'd want Fisher back as Chairman or CEO under new owners (despite the fact that, IMNSHO, given the constraints and ineptitude around the club as a whole, the footballing side is not run entirely stupidly atm) and not entirely sure why Ranson avoids criticism.
Given his plan as of 2015 was to introduce other hedge funds to other fpootball clubs so said hedge funds could make a profit, it seems he isn't overly bothered with how such a plan turned out at CCFC either.
Just for the record I remember Ricky Sbragia talking about retaining Jordan Henderson....... but I cant find the quote to post it. Do I believe a permanent deal was likely to bring him here sorry no.
Almost certain (off to a funral, so not looking for it ) that it was only ever going to be a loan as he was rated very, very highly by Sunderland.
Remember Coleman fighting to extend it to the end of the season too but failing.
The irony being that SISU's post Ranson cost control (which still hasn't really been that effective) was needed from day one.
Fair description, I also think the 2008 world financial crash scared the shit out of them, so weren't willing to put dough into the club.
Which proves how stupid they were, it doesn't take a lot of research to establish that a football club is a money pit.
Wasnt there significant financial fallout because of the ITV sport collapse? Or did clubs just make a lot of it?
Just remembered the ITV thing was just after we were relegated... Ignore that!
Still, I think you're correct, it must have had a huge impact on clubs, especially where the budget had already been spent for that year, to then get the rug pulled from beneath them.
That's the same link sbk used.
The bit in question is an unquoted bit between 2 quoted paragraphs but it's not the journalist?
If every paper at the time covered it then it should be out there.
I can't find it...
Why are you conducting a pointless argument about something that no longer matters. It won't change anything.
As I keep saying, google the quote. You'll be spoilt for choice as every newspaper national and local that covered the takeover seem to use the same quote. They were quoting Joe Elliott as the outgoing chairman who was giving details of the takeover deal. It wasn't newspaper spin, it was a quote. Just Elliott's not Ransoms quote.
Why are you?
Yes, but it's not a quote from the group (SISU) who had apparently committed to spend £20m on transfers and clear the club's debt. Considering Elliott's role in getting people's shares, it was in his interest to talk up the merits of the deal with SISU, so perhaps he's exaggerating.
Or, perhaps SISU had intended to do that without realising the structural issues the club had (god knows how they didn't).
Either way, I don't even know what we're arguing about.
All this is is an argument really about Ranson and his role at the club. Some would exonerate him of all blame and even welcome him back.
He is a Wanker of the highest order and a huge contributor to the state we are now in.
Not sure I buy in to the argument that they got the jitters due to the financial crisis.
The financial crisis hit in 2007/08, at that time they bought CCFC and put in £2.6m according to the accounts
in 2008/09 accounts it shows monies put by the owners of £12.36M
2009/10 accounts show 700k put in by the owners (that year relied on player sales to balance the cashflow)
2010/11 accounts show £7.6m put in by the owners (including by ARVO)
This at a time when our turnovers were in excess of £14m, considerably more than now.
so it looks like they were prepared to put funds in to keep the business going and there was a workable level of turnover. In which case it comes back to how the money was spent. When you have a club spending over 85% + of its turnover on wages for players who collectively under performed isn't that the real problem. Costs were out of control and remained so throughout the Ranson era. Whose fault was that, you have to make your own mind up on that, but surely he along with other directors shares responsibility in that not just SISU.
This btw, just to be clear, is not a defence of SISU but it is not reasonable to state they didn't provide funds when clearly they did during that period
Didn't realise I was arguing with anybody!
Just fancied reading the quote in context but if nobody can find it then fair enough...
Because it's not been covered enough already, BBC CWR will be talking about the Court Case from Friday, at 6PM this evening with Moz Baker (Sky Blue Trust) and everyone's favourite Cov Telegraph reporter, Simon Gilbert.
Seems to me Ranson promised them if they put a certain amount in they would get a good ROI in a couple of years. They put the money in put he didn't get the club promoted so couldn't give them the promised ROI. As simple as that.
Remember he used to keep banging on about the crowds not being big enough. He'd clearly mis-calculated and when SISU wouldn't put more money in (when he then sold Fox and Dann) that's when the game was up and he tried to resign.
What he should have done at that point is advised SISU to cut their losses and sell up. At that point they would have still taken a hit but it would have been manageable.
Since then they've just dug themselves into a deeper and deeper hole.
Separate names with a comma.