Ranson (41 Viewers)

kduffy said:

Prey tell us unenlightened ones - what was the plan, what was the budget? I do not know the inside information that you do so please tell us what they renaged on and the discrepancy in budgets that left Ranson duped? Also as we account for a miniscule percentage of SISU total accreditation I do not think their investors will lose much sleep, do you?

Click to expand...

The credit crunch affected all the stock market etc not just the fund that own CCFC and I would expect they all took a hit in there share values so i doubt they would have highlighted it by shouting from the roof tops that hey we aint got any money left for CCFC.

As for enlightened ones you seem to accept as fact only a veiw that agrees with your veiw

Still awaiting you to enlighten us on how dulieu can be classed as a "football man" as you stated previously

cloughie said:

The credit crunch affected all the stock market etc not just the fund that own CCFC and I would expect they all took a hit in there share values so i doubt they would have highlighted it by shouting from the roof tops that hey we aint got any money left for CCFC.

As for enlightened ones you seem to accept as fact only a veiw that agrees with your veiw

Still awaiting you to enlighten us on how dulieu can be classed as a "football man" as you stated previously

Click to expand...

I do not know the facts of boardroom conversations so that is the point and neither does anyone else people just assume certain things.
The only fact is SISU are a hedge fund and hedge funds want fast turnaround on their investment and it is highly unlikely they would ever give an organisation a large amount of funds on the risk of not getting their money back and more. So I merely question the view Ransom is not to blame when you look at normal hedge fund behaviour this is difficult to support.
Your last comment intrigues me. When did I say that - I wait with interest for the post.

My picking issue with Ranson was his choice of managers:

Boothroyd and Coleman - Yuck!

EleanorRigby said:

Abramovic has 11 billion in the bank and rising, do you really think he gives a toss about fairplay rules, money buys anything and anyone. What do you think Platini will or can do.

Click to expand...

He can exclude teams contravening the rulings from playing in continental competition.

This from the OSB Money Talks 2 thread needs re-iterating on anything to do with poor old Ray:

"Loans. Much is discussed about the SISU and other loans. Here are the facts as have so far been made available. On takeover the net liabilities of the group were discounted down by £35m leaving net debts of £8m for SISU to fund plus £3m losses from takeover until 31/05/08. By 31/05/08 they had provided a loan of £11m, this money loaned to the company to pay its debts. During the year to 31/05/09 these loans to SBS&L had risen by £12.4m to £23.4m. A further £700k was provided in 2010. Not all of that cash came to CCFC some would have covered the June 2008 acquisition of Prozone Group and funding its liabilities. Bear in mind that the funding SISU investors provide are loans to SBS&L that doesnt mean it all filters down to CCFC Ltd although because of cash flow difficulties much will have. RR was able to say we dont owe any banks but neglected to make clear we sure as hell owed SISU – we were never debt free as claimed. In fact there was £1.5m owed to RR’s own company Arley Group PLC in addition to SISU loans. The SISU loans do not charge interest those from Arley Group PLC did £153745 (2009) £310059 (2010)

Directors Remuneration In the accounts from 2008 to 2010 there is only one Director that has been paid – RR. He was paid via Arley Group £169750 (2008) £294500 (2009) £303125 (2010). There is nothing in the accounts so far published that indicates any other directors have been paid. Just to be clear disclosure is required by the Companies Act and if not done would be disclosed by the independent auditors in their report. Total cost of RR’s services & interest to 31/05/10 £1.23m"

Over £450,000 in interest paid on a £1.5 million loan from Ranson up to 2010, God only knows how much more he screwed out of the club in his last year.

£1.5 million loan to the club purely so he could gouge a huge amount of interest, far,far more than he could possibly gain elsewhere, yet Sisu loans were non-interest bearing.

Also note that his directors pay went up year on year, yet crowds and income deteriorating over the same period.

kduffy said:

I do not know the facts of boardroom conversations so that is the point and neither does anyone else people just assume certain things.
The only fact is SISU are a hedge fund and hedge funds want fast turnaround on their investment and it is highly unlikely they would ever give an organisation a large amount of funds on the risk of not getting their money back and more. So I merely question the view Ransom is not to blame when you look at normal hedge fund behaviour this is difficult to support.
Your last comment intrigues me. When did I say that - I wait with interest for the post.

Click to expand...

My apologies Kduffy i mistakenly referred to a post written by TIMS regarding duleiu. I apologise unreservedly.

Regarding ranson i have always said he made mistakes yet my opinion is that the plan as ranson was reported to have seemed good yet according to Ranson this plan was thwarted by sisu.
Ranson also claimed not to take a penny in wages himself, this was technically correct yet the truth was a company owned by ranson was receiving £300, 000 a year. So misleading if nothing else to put it mildly.

i could list things sisu have said and not produced on but these are many and have been mentioned on here many times before.

As you say we can only assume things and then we all make our own opinions that may well differ, trouble is some like to think their opinion is fact

My question is would some rather not do a deal with the hoffman camp if ranson is involved and stay with sisu.

cloughie said:

My apologies Kduffy i mistakenly referred to a post written by TIMS regarding duleiu. I apologise unreservedly.

Regarding ranson i have always said he made mistakes yet my opinion is that the plan as ranson was reported to have seemed good yet according to Ranson this plan was thwarted by sisu.
Ranson also claimed not to take a penny in wages himself, this was technically correct yet the truth was a company owned by ranson was receiving £300, 000 a year. So misleading if nothing else to put it mildly.

i could list things sisu have said and not produced on but these are many and have been mentioned on here many times before.

As you say we can only assume things and then we all make our own opinions that may well differ, trouble is some like to think their opinion is fact

My question is would some rather not do a deal with the hoffman camp if ranson is involved and stay with sisu.

Click to expand...

No worries I was searching old posts thinking "did I really say that!". Had me worried for a minute!

Chipfat said:

Name me 1 chairman/onwer or board member of championship or prem club today that is in it solely for the love of the club......They are all in it for money, networking or money laundering...remember nothing in life is free...

Click to expand...

Dave Whelan probably. In an land where football is alien he has made them a Premiership Team when they should at best be a Blue Square outfit. Unlikeable bigot maybe but it is a miracle than Wigan are in the Premiership.

I don't know why whelan should be called a bigot but it is a miracle that wigan are in the premiership

What I was told in the week by a guy that works at the telegraph.
SISU do not want to be here and they want the deal done by jan 7th as they DO NOT want the bad publicity the protest will give them
£12m to get them out now and then £15m if we get promoted to premier league in a certain period of time.
£15m to invest in the team and a deal for the stadium is in place when the takeover is done

I know it's another "I got told" comment but I would trust the guy that said it and time will tell. I will not give a shit if the date is wrong but SISU want out and it will happen!!!

Bennets Afro said:

What I was told in the week by a guy that works at the telegraph.
SISU do not want to be here and they want the deal done by jan 7th as they DO NOT want the bad publicity the protest will give them
£12m to get them out now and then £15m if we get promoted to premier league in a certain period of time.
£15m to invest in the team and a deal for the stadium is in place when the takeover is in place

I know it's another "I got told" comment but I would trust the guy that said it and time will tell. I will not be give a shit if the date is wrong but SISU want out and it will happen!!!

Click to expand...

I'd take that, but I'm a bit surprised that:
a) They are that bothered about the protest; the feeling I got was that it was petering out a tad...
b) Hoff and co. are prepared to pay 12m up front. I would have thought we are worth a lot less than that. 5M tops?

Nonleagueherewecome said:

I'd take that, but I'm a bit surprised that:
a) They are that bothered about the protest; the feeling I got was that it was petering out a tad...
b) Hoff and co. are prepared to pay 12m up front. I would have thought we are worth a lot less than that. 5M tops?

Click to expand...

Maybe Hoff & Co are not prepared to pay £12M up front. They are still dancing, I think.

Agree NLHWC £5-8 m. TopsKeogh £2m, Juke £2-2.5m. Clingan Cranie£0.5m .each The three young Starlets £2-2.5m.

Linnell has just tweeted the following;

I am told that talk of a CCFC takeover being complete is premature. Best to keep a lid on unhelpful gossip & rumour, imho.

Weve been taken over then Linnell's just bluffing otherwise why say anything.
Sorry just had to, no offence intended to any SBT forum member.

Great when you have to put a disclosure at the end of a post.

It's not about the worth of CCFC it's the price they will accept to feck off!!!

It has happened folks SISU are toast get ready for the ride

shmmeee said:

No inside info, just repeated statements from Ranson about the plan plus the actions to back it up.

Look, for 18 months we were a very well run club. We invested in sensible players with very few mistakes (only Eastwood comes to mind and there's an argument he's been mishandled rather than being an outright bad signing). We bought players with resale value for good prices. We built slowly and we had a commitment to the right kind of football.

Could some things have been better, especially in terms of fanbase building during the relative good times? Yes. Is that any different from every board weve have since Hill? No.

Things started going wrong at the end of Colemans first full season. SISU got £s in their eyes as clubs started sniffing round out players, this caused a rift a board level and undermined Coleman who was left having to build again rather than push on. This is all well documented by the way.

Before the end of Colemans second full season he was sacked and a new manager came in who started very well, had severe injury problems an again was faced with budget cuts at a crucial time. He got sacked and Thorn comes in and has a summer that makes Gadaffis look good and here we are.

The key mistakes were (as I see it):

- Cashing in on key players too early and not completing the squad building being attempted.
- Not making funds available at a key time when we were looking good for the play offs under Boothroyd.
- gutting the remnants of a team that finished just above the drop zone and expecting a rookie manager to cope.

None of these mistakes were Ransons. I for one (having never been anti-Ranson Hackers) would like to see him given a full three seasons to attempt his plan again.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how anyone sees it any other way.

Ok so criticise Ranson's manager choices if you wish but the biggest issue (and one that has been constant throughout) is the depth of the playing squad. This is dictated by the budget that SISU provide and if they were going to operate on such a tight one then they needed to be a lot more patient than they were.

(That's assuming that they bailed on the plan because they saw it was failing. Outside circumstances may have dictated that they would bail on it regardless. After all, we are merely a business venture for them).

A failed business venture thats what the boycott is about highllighting sisu failure

i would like ranson back he knows football we need a guiding hand at the top for whover is manager to follow :slap::slap::slap:

I'm willing to go with him if the clueless miscreants dissapear,am not entirely comfortable with him as,1--i found him uncommunicative ,felt as always have, that the stadium should always have been the priority in our longterm search for security ,2--am extremely uncomfortable that he was lending cardiff city money ,while involved with us .this may make me seem hypocritical,but i'm preparedto sell my soul ,for the only reason there is to it all .This club has to have investment to survive /flourish,Sisu have nil potential for it ,the others have ,its that simple

cloughie said:

A failed business venture thats what the boycott is about highllighting sisu failure

Click to expand...

Quite. SISU know they have no future with Coventry City and have probably known for a while. What we're seeing now is a desperate attempt to claw something back for their efforts. In the mean time they'll let any old jokers run the show.

I wonder if John Clarke is regretting the decision to associate himself with this. A nice little ego trip for him gone wrong :facepalm: