How do we know what the differences are? We know nothing about the supposed "new" investors. We may never know much about them in the same way no-one knows the true investment source at, say, Leeds Utd. Having a supporter as a chairman is all very well but does that mean anything. The budget is to be dictated by the investment source.
All we seem to know is that a couple of familiar names are associated with these new bids which makes it hard to identify anything different and means that we cannot neccesaily see a brighter future. It seems odd the talks are very protracted. Agreement has not therefore been reached. Both sides seem to be playing cat and mouse and we as supporters are the lump of cheese in the middle.
Ranson's big thing was a much smaller squad, which you wanked over when it was the nauseating "Ray and Chris show".
Still at least he manged to compensate himself by increasing what he took out of the club year on year in direct opposite to the income, league position and crowds during his tenure.
Shame the accounts aren't released yet, would love to know how much more he managed to leach out of the club in his final year.
Also wanted to comment on the assertion that because GH resigned then that some how absolved him from any responsibility for the actions/events that took place during the time he was director. Absolutely incorrect, ....... GH had joint and several liability with the other members of the board during the time of his appointment - that is company law. Also ignorance of the law is no excuse so he cant claim that either. If he wasnt aware of what was going on then he was negligent in his duties as a director. If he wasnt part of the decision making process why be a director and assume the responsibilities it brings
Despite being the only white knight in town he cant be excused his responsiblities. You can put up a reasonable moral arguement to make him less culpable than others for events during his period of office - but company law doesnt make that distinction.
That btw is not a dig at GH - just some facts
But if Hoffmans investors are to be involved in the excercise to deliver proof of funding, the parties will surely have signed a LOI regarding a takeover or joint adventure. I don't think a LOU would suffice. Anyway, if either were signed, we would surely have heard about it.
But he resigned when Thomas was loaned out in 2011 didnt he but was appointed march 2008. I think there were decisions in the first two years that added to the financial risk and taken by the board of directors of which he was part. There were decisions that added to our cost structure increased losses and necessitated debt increase which were taken by that Board. I think most think it all went sour when SISU started getting more closely involved which most would agree was about 2 years in. Or are we saying he never agreed with it but acquiesed to it for 3 years. If you are on the Board then you share the blame and what went on in the first 2 years contributed to where we are now.
I dont see GH as any great hero but have no axe to grind with him either. His part in this as a director might have been small but he helped get us into this mess.
A think a LOL would be more fitting when it comes to Hoffman's "bid" and "investors".
To be fair, I am only referring to SISU's cut backs since 2009 when they sold Dann and Fox. I think the only problem before that was working on such a tight budget (and therefore small squad) we were never going to see quick progress on the pitch. You'll have to enlighten me as to the gross error of judgements he made during this period. (Not meaning to sound sarcastic! I actually thought we WERE making progress back then, albeit slowly).
If we are talking about GH then I don't think we can limit the period, I think you have to look at the full 3 years he was a director. But just to be clear this is not a GH bashing session on my part - but I do think he has some responsibility along with the others on the Board from day one. The trouble is we dont actually know what was said in meetings and hindsight would suggest that things were not right financially from the start.
Many go on about the business accumen of GH, the fact that he was/is a top banker, the fact he is financially astute. The things that bankers have ingrained into them when they look at business are among the following - security, risk, financial affordability, living within means, operating within and meeting budgets or targets. All things he will have addressed aggressively at Barclays, Northern Rock etc.
Like I said we don't know what was said at meetings but the indications are that he was in full support of what was being done under the Board of which he was a member - that support failing over a year or so in 2011. Unlike others he knew what banks needed (or substitute SISU for that ), he had the financial expertise that perhaps others didnt. I am also careful to realise there are two sides to every story and peoples perceptions of events always differ and also change over time
From what I can tell the Board didnt meet budgets or targets they set (yes they set them - SISU finalised with RR etc, both agreed them and SISU funded them as required) but all directors would be closely involved and knew the budget. To begin with RR & Co were given a certain amount of freedom to operate but that should have been within the budgets they agreed - clearly they failed to do that. Losses were not really addressed and the only assets we could cash in to pay the bills were players. However I would find it very surprising if player sales were not already built into the budgets of a football club. The board kept going back to SISU with the begging bowl in excess of the budgets set, doesnt give anyone confidence in the finances really if that happens repeatedly does it?
I can tell you that Banks/financial institutions do not take well to clients/directors keep coming back for more when targets are not met. Because financial targets not met we were not living within means of business and the risk to the business increased and kept increasing. All this GH knew but apparently supported the Board under RR in overspending, not hitting budgets, putting the business at risk. I would have thought that his decision to resign - given his banking knowledge - would have been much sooner. The only evidence we had that things were ok was from press releases from RR - remember " we are debt free" ? - when in actual fact we were fed on B/S from the start in big dollops. The truth was we were always living beyond our means and the directors charged with running the business properly and sustainably failed in their duties to do that. GH was a director.
I know hindsight is a wonderful thing - but there is not one director that has served CCFC that has not contributed to decisions that have led to the current state of the club. Some more prominent than others admittedly but GH was a director for 3 years. To my mind he has contributed by assisting in Board decisions or not making decisions during that tenure. Sorry but I can not absolve him from some responsibility in that.
People make mistakes, take the wrong decision - thats life. He helped get us here perhaps he may get us out of it - although personally i am not confident of it - but this is not GH bashing only a recognition of some responsibility
By you're impression I assume you mean you've made it up to suit you're argument as to suggest otherwise would be to crticise your chum Ray the football man.
Because if in fact the budgets never did change that ultimately is an admission the project failed at source through ranson.
Without him sisu would never had bought the club. He sold the vision they gave him the money. I am sure they were thrilled at his management choice which almost relegated us first time out. He sacked 3 managers sanctioned the signing of numerous players and the clubs league position was always poor. If budgets did change perhaps it was because the money men lost confidence in the man who talked a good game but preceded over abject failure.
As I said, I think we were making sufficient progress with the squad until the sale of Scott Dann and Danny Fox which in my view was brought on by a change of priorities for SISU.
If they were expecting instant success with the resources they allocated to the club then that's naivety on their part and a bad investment. Once they started cutting into the playing squad to make up for losses the project was over - hence Ranson's threat then ultimate resignation.
But who was the only man who could sketch the original investment budget??? Ranson, right?
Sisu did not possess any knowledge of football, their job was to provide the money Ranson asked for to run the shop.
And who was ultimately responsible for delivering whitin the budget - the board, which Ranson chair'ed.
I don't for a second believe Ranson left by his own free will - after all he stood to lose Prozone, his baby, that he throw into the pot in a swap for ccfc shares.
I get that part. It's just that SISU altered their part of the bargain 2 years in. The original budget was fine. We were making progress with the squad. If SISU were expecting us to be competing in the top 6 by 2009 on that budget then they were being unrealistic.
Of course this is correct.
He clearly didn't agree with the direction SISU were taking the club though else he wouldn't have resigned.
I think the football club part of the sisu empire, Coventry City is debt free even though we are running at a continual loss, these costs are picked up by sisu. I suspect this is the fly in the ointment in takeover negotiations. How do sisu recoup their losses and costs hence no accounts submitted or decisions on how the club is financed going forward.
As for who these potential investors are if it who i have been told they are they could swallow up what we owe sisu from their trouser pockets, something else sisu will be aware of.
I get that part. It's just that SISU altered their part of the bargain 2 years in. The original budget was fine. We were making progress with the squad. If SISU were expecting us to be competing in the top 6 by 2009 on that budget then they were being unrealistic.
An open cheque book? That's a laugh! Sisu have never splashed proper doe on players for city. Id rather walk on hot tar with broken glass than ever get behind sisu.
SISU realised the error of their ways and the folly of allowing Ranson an open cheque book - simple as that really.
Haha - open chequebook.
Yeah he went crazy didn't he. Who'd have thought we'd sign Messi and Ronaldo?!
You were probably kissing his backside back then.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?