Proper supporters fighting for their club (1 Viewer)

[dongonzalos]

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.

The only positive about GH is that he actually has an alligence to both the club and City
As well as been an astute businessman. You would hope that he would make the right decisions for the club without been too blinded by rose tinted glasses.
I would imagine it will be very protracted and messey as SISU have a global reputation for being ruthless in negiations and business tactics

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

I thought GH was only fronting a bid on behalf of investors much the same way as SISU got in with RR fronting their takeover. In that sense GH might not be involved in running the club and he is acting on instructions, which would mean we shouldnt place much reliance on his ongoing business acumen. But I suppose situation normal at CCFC - nothing is very clear whoever is involved

 

[oldskyblue58]

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

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

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.

There's a small squad and there's a squad as threadbare as the carpet in front of Mike McGinnity's drinking cabinet!

Since Coleman's tenure we've had nowhere near enough cover in key areas, resulting in dips in form when key players like Clingan have been injured in the past. These things count on the overall points haul and not even you can claim that that was Ranson's intention. It's SISU that showed a complete disregard to our playing squad not him. Hence his eventual resignation.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

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

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.

 

[oldskyblue58]

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.

 

[lordsummerisle]

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.

A think a LOL would be more fitting when it comes to Hoffman's "bid" and "investors".

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

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.

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).

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

A think a LOL would be more fitting when it comes to Hoffman's "bid" and "investors".

We'll see. A lot of background work has to be done to persuade anyone to invest in CCFC under the current circumstances but I believe he is in discussions with interested parties right now and it is only a matter of time.

 

[oldskyblue58]

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

 

[EleanorRigby]

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.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

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

OSB, my impression of it was that those budgets changed at SISU's end (I would put this down to the credit crunch) and Ranson could no longer carry out the model he was trying to build of bringing young players in and building a team as this was put to one side for short-term interests.

The sale of Conor Thomas was the final straw for City fan Hoffman which would only make sense seeing as he would be hurt more than the rest of them by what happens on the pitch. He no longer wanted to be held accountable and neither did Ranson soon after.

As you said we all have our own take on it and nobody knows what really happened.

 

[Grendel]

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.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

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.

How's that?

 

[Grendel]

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.

 

[Godiva]

Budgets are one thing - realising them is a completely other matter.
The gates declined in the period meaning less income. So to stay within the budgets costs had to get cut ... player wages had to come down. If excecuting the cost cuts didn't happen in the same tempo as the income dropped, then the only option was to ask the owners for more money.
Add to that failure to get cash for Westwood and Gunnar in the summer leading to the previous season - yet signing King on high wages, it seems more than likely that budgets were not 'cut' by the owners, but simply not excuted properly by the management.
So actions by the board lead to shortage of cash. The owners refuse to pay for this mismanagement. The board had to raise alternative cash (Thomas to Liverpool). Hoffman gets offended and leave, blaming the owners for not bailing him and the board out.

Who to blame?
Sisu, for not expanding their investment?
The board for making too optimisc budgets and not executing cost cuts to counter failing income?
The fans for not spending the amount of money the board had planned for?

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

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.

 

[Godiva]

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.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

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.

 

[dongonzalos]

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.

Its mad really all of these arguements are made on guesswork, as no one really knows what is going on.

Coleman, Ranson, AB, GH, JE, All say one thing

Who ever SHITSU have employed for that particualr month says something different.

The only way we will ever know the truth if, if one of SHITSU's cannon fodder become disgurntled and tell us the truth. However I think when they get sacke dor moved around they have confidentiality clauses.......

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

As I wrote in another thread:
I think SISU have carried on with the destruction of the Club started by the thief Richardson but I do not believe that Hoffman is anywhere near making a bid for the Club with other people's money and certainly not with his own.
I think he has done as much as SISU to ruin the Club: not just when he was a Director but ever since. His actions and Keys' moronic tweets will have put off anybody else who might, just might, have been interested. It was time for Hoffman to put up or shut up a long time ago. All he has done is raise hopes and ensure that SISU remain with ever fewer routes out.
I fear liquidation not administration.
And if that happens Hoffman will be as much to blame as SISU, Richardson, McGinnity and Robinson.

I fear liquidation: what incentive is there for SISU to continue? If there is no deal being discussed (and I believe that Hoffman is not discussing anything with SISU) what is the future? There is no point for SISU in administration as they would have to pay the administrator and why should he/she be any more successful in finding a buyer than they have been?
Yes, its liquidation that I fear.

 

[thorn in my side]

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.

2 + 2 = 5

Of course there can be no other reason could there !:facepalm:

 

[thorn in my side]

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 suspect the issue is there are no negotiations because the Hoff does not have any credible investors behind him. The silence from GH on this issue is deafening but never mind good old Key's will tweet again soon "good news in the next few days"..."er...no...it is a bit more complicated than 1st thought"..."er...what do you reckon Andy, shall I just keep my gob shut?".

Come on Hoff - a simple statement: Who are the investors (or owners to be of our beloved club)? Give us a taste of the business plan / the vision? Feed us some bread-crumbs from your feastly table?

Sorry - but just does not wash. For my part (and many many others) we just want Hoff to put up now or shut up and go away.

If there is no credible bid, then we need to get behind SISU and collectively help push our club forward. If there is no credible bid, wanting SISU out and enticing admin is irresponsible.

The whole protest movement hinges on the Hoff having a credible bid - if I am wrong, then the protests are simply about crippling the owners and thus the club and I for one will not and cannot support such a stance.

 

[thorn in my side]

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.

SISU realised the error of their ways and the folly of allowing Ranson an open cheque book - simple as that really.

 

[valiant15]

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.

 

[thorn in my side]

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.

Good luck with that then - make sure you wear tar and glass proof shoes

 

[@richh87]

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?!

 

[lordsummerisle]

Haha - open chequebook.

Yeah he went crazy didn't he. Who'd have thought we'd sign Messi and Ronaldo?!

All the cheques were written out for "Cash" to a Mr R. Ranson, whoever the hell he is.

 

[valiant15]

You were probably kissing his backside back then.

 

[lordsummerisle]

You were probably kissing his backside back then.

Yeah, always loved Ranson and Sisu, well known for it.

Twat.