SISU In or out? (2 Viewers)

[Earlsdon-Loyal-Blue]

We had a chance with Dale Evans.

More chance of Manchester City sacking Guardiola for Russel Slade. Ridiculous shout.

 

---

[rob9872]

Ffs 47% in really? We're doing ok in spite of them not because of them. I'm not marching and protesting, I went to brum but ffs any tiny opportunity to get these horrible cunts out of our club must be taken. They'd screw us all again and again if it suited them. Im not naive they're not alone, the council and wasps are not blameless but don't ever, ever forget, never forgive what they've done to us.

 

[Nick]

Just the tip in?

 

[skybluetony176]

Out. But not at any cost. We don’t need a Portsmouth situation where they went through a quick succession of owners, each one worse than the previous and each one left the club with less than the previous. I can put up with SISU for now but ultimately the furthest they can take the club is exactly where they found it so if the club is to move forward it needs new owners and the right ones.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Our owners have not changed their original objectives or their willingness to act in the same manner again. Their current stance it appears to me, is to do nothing, provide only funding of last resort and to rely on the manager & team over achieving. The only major thing to change in the last 5 years is their own PR, largely by saying nothing.

I am relaxed about the current situation but I neither forget nor forgive the actions of the owners (yes and others). I just do not trust them I do not think I ever will.

It can not be new owners at any cost though or going back to the ways we got in financial trouble in the first place. But the fans have no say at all in ownership changes.

I wonder how many voting in the owners favour would feel the same if were we losing regularly or got relegated last season

Personally I have zero expectations of SISU, it is all about the team and a manager who takes them to more than the sum of their parts.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Agreed. No point saying out, unless you know the alternative.

Alternatives won't manifest themselves until there's a viable out looking likely to happen.

You're better to say, out and then a transparent process of in.

 

[theferret]

Our owners have not changed their original objectives or their willingness to act in the same manner again. Their current stance it appears to me, is to do nothing, provide only funding of last resort and to rely on the manager & team over achieving. The only major thing to change in the last 5 years is their own PR, largely by saying nothing.

You mean they are arms length owners that allow the club to run itself and live within its means?

Take away the history (hard I know), but isn't that the model that all clubs should follow? What do you want them to do, throw money at a new Operation Premiership? That would be madness, wouldn't it? Like it or not, we seem relatively stable right now, in a division full of clubs that are teetering on the edge. I say we stay the course.

Accusations of 'apologist' inbound of course, but you cannot say that were entirely responsible for our downward spiral (they were), but then say they are not responsible in any way for undoing that damage. MR wouldn't agree with that, he seems to speak well of the owners (and not just in a 'well, of course he would' way); clearly there is a decent relationship there.

A few years ago we were losing at home to Forest Green in League 2. We had no deal to play at the Ricoh and the place could not have felt less like home; we were set to be kicked out of AH by Wasps and our academy become homeless and the future of Ryton was in doubt and it was falling apart. All as a result of their mismanagement, but they have fixed a lot of that have they not, but you say the only thing to change in 5 years is PR? I'd say the change is bigger than that.

I say we just enjoy this period of stability and hope lessons have been well and truly learned, because the ownership isn't changing anytime soon.

 

[Grendel]

You mean they are arms length owners that allow the club to run itself and live within its means?

Take away the history (hard I know), but isn't that the model that all clubs should follow? What do you want them to do, throw money at a new Operation Premiership? That would be madness, wouldn't it? Like it or not, we seem relatively stable right now, in a division full of clubs that are teetering on the edge. I say we stay the course.

Accusations of 'apologist' inbound of course, but you cannot say that were entirely responsible for our downward spiral (they were), but then say they are not responsible in any way for undoing that damage. MR wouldn't agree with that, he seems to speak well of the owners (and not just in a 'well, of course he would' way); clearly there is a decent relationship there.

A few years ago we were losing at home to Forest Green in League 2. We had no deal to play at the Ricoh and the place could not have felt less like home; we were set to be kicked out of AH by Wasps and our academy become homeless and the future of Ryton was in doubt and it was falling apart. All as a result of their mismanagement, but they have fixed a lot of that have they not, but you say the only thing to change in 5 years is PR? I'd say the change is bigger than that.

I say we just enjoy this period of stability and hope lessons have been well and truly learned, because the ownership isn't changing anytime soon.

the club isn’t anywhere near close to living in its means

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

the club isn’t anywhere near close to living in its means

Yes, the 23s player they sold is to pay off debts to the same club from last season

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Yes, the 23s player they sold is to pay off debts to the same club from last season

How come this hasn’t come out yet?

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

How come this hasn’t come out yet?

It’s done just not been announced - we trialled another goalkeeper in the 23s on Monday

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

It’s done just not been announced - we trialled another goalkeeper in the 23s on Monday

Saw that

 

[oldskyblue58]

You mean they are arms length owners that allow the club to run itself and live within its means?

Take away the history (hard I know), but isn't that the model that all clubs should follow? What do you want them to do, throw money at a new Operation Premiership? That would be madness, wouldn't it? Like it or not, we seem relatively stable right now, in a division full of clubs that are teetering on the edge. I say we stay the course.

Accusations of 'apologist' inbound of course, but you cannot say that were entirely responsible for our downward spiral (they were), but then say they are not responsible in any way for undoing that damage. MR wouldn't agree with that, he seems to speak well of the owners (and not just in a 'well, of course he would' way); clearly there is a decent relationship there.

A few years ago we were losing at home to Forest Green in League 2. We had no deal to play at the Ricoh and the place could not have felt less like home; we were set to be kicked out of AH by Wasps and our academy become homeless and the future of Ryton was in doubt and it was falling apart. All as a result of their mismanagement, but they have fixed a lot of that have they not, but you say the only thing to change in 5 years is PR? I'd say the change is bigger than that.

I say we just enjoy this period of stability and hope lessons have been well and truly learned, because the ownership isn't changing anytime soon.

Think you will find that in my posts in over the past 10 years or more I have been a strong advocate of all clubs living within their own means. That however includes owners putting money in if they choose to but not by creating repayable debt interest bearing or not. You do not have to load a club with debt to finance it, its a choice

Trouble is our competitors do not in general buy in to that model, particularly in the championship. We are not self financing yet. In fact didn't we take a 3.5m loan from efl simply to carry on this season, unusual circumstances I know

If you credit the owners for things like returning to the stadium then you also have to credit others for being open and willing to create the opportunity. As you suggest you can't have all one way but that applies to more than just our owners.

By taking no action the owners force the club to be self sustaining. There is no great financial management strategy to it. Its not a course of action I have ever argued against.You have to accept however that this places in all likelihood a glass ceiling on any great progression.

What I do not accept is that there has been any great change of heart by the owners. It is and always has been about their investment and how to get it back at a profit.

What do you expect MR to say about the owners? He is a pragmatic man and understands the constraints on the club. The past couple of years he has exceeded expectations based on the finance available. From the financial statements to 2020 over last few years the owners have taken out more money than they have put in. Has he got a good relationship with the owner yes it seems so, that doesnt really change the financial basis of the club does it.

Yes we are more stable, but that doesn't mean we are not still at risk. Did they "fix" things because they were clear in the way forward or because of financial expediency required it or go bust? We don't know the details of the deals struck or how much the owners had to compromise simply to survive.

So far what is happening is succeeding and of course the owners have a part in that. I dont think there is any great magic to what they are doing, they are financial investment managers running a football club as a business not some ego trip. Never said otherwise than they have a role in it. But it is a part. I would argue the changes in the last couple years were because the owners probably had no choice.

The club is doing better, because of the team & MR primarily and because our owners and others are no longer being litigious and confrontational. The rest is what should be normal practice in running any business.

No accusations of being apologist from me, entitled to your opinion. We just see it slightly differently.

Am just going to enjoy the team performances. I can understand the finances but I can't change the owners. Haven't seen anything that makes me trust them

 

[Deleted member 5849]

By taking no action the owners force the club to be self sustaining. There is no great financial management strategy to it. Its not a course of action I have ever argued against.You have to accept however that this places in all likelihood a glass ceiling on any great progression.

And of course as you say, as we accrue interest (and take money out to repay if possible) then our glass ceiling is lower than it necessarily needs to be, even with a 'self sustaining' strategy.

 

[oldskyblue58]

And of course as you say, as we accrue interest (and take money out to repay if possible) then our glass ceiling is lower than it necessarily needs to be, even with a 'self sustaining' strategy.

Unless the interest gets repaid then the club debt continues to grow, the ability to break even profit wise gets harder, and has to affect the team. For instance greater pressure to sell star players to keep losses manageable.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

We should be campaigning for a much lower or zero interest rate

 

[Grendel]

We should be campaigning for a much lower or zero interest rate

There is zero chance of that happening as OSB says the motivation for the owners is not to look at investment to create success - success may happen or it may not - but their focus is on returns from the monies in the club that are owed.

High interest rates support the strategy.

This would have been an opportunity for all sorts of reasons for the club to be supported with relative conservative levels of monies to attempt a top 6 movement or at least work to that in the next two seasons. This would not even be on the agenda to discuss in the boardroom

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

There is zero chance of that happening as OSB says the motivation for the owners is not to look at investment to create success - success may happen or it may not - but their focus is on returns from the monies in the club that are owed.

High interest rates support the strategy.

This would have been an opportunity for all sorts of reasons for the club to be supported with relative conservative levels of monies to attempt a top 6 movement or at least work to that in the next two seasons. This would not even be on the agenda to discuss in the boardroom

Pretty sure you’d be surprised

 

[Grendel]

Pretty sure you’d be surprised

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

Pretty sure you’d be surprised

When is your next meeting with the club Pete, will you be taking questions nearer the time?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

When is your next meeting with the club Pete, will you be taking questions nearer the time?

We wanted to meet with Db but couldn’t get a date sorted. Next supporters forum is pretty soon and of course

 

[SkyblueDad]

Can’t you get Sepalla with respect to Boddy he’s her oil rag.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Can’t you get Sepalla with respect to Boddy he’s her oil rag.

What would you want to ask her?

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

What would you want to ask her?

I imagine Boddy is briefed by Ms Sepalla anyway

 

[Hiraeth]

We should be campaigning for a much lower or zero interest rate

That is an interesting suggestion.

I agree with your point at the top of the thread that In / Out may not reflect the nuance in the position that some supporters hold although I guess In / Out poll results are still informative in themselves.
I don't think the 'In' votes are indicative of a massive swing of opinion from the boos previously heard at Wembley that were aimed at Joy when the cameras turned to her and she came up on the giant screens to us hearing 'We love you SISU, we do' reverberating around Singers Corner anytime soon.
I do think some fans felt that the ownership protests weren't effective in applying the desired change and that ultimately the football club wasn't deriving any benefit from the protests even when those fans bought into the idea of a change of ownership.

These may well be stupid questions but I'm going to ask them anyway.

Does the process of building up a growing amount of interest debt in a business through a high rate of interest provide any less tangible benefits to the creditor owed that debt beyond the potential ability now and in the future to realise that interest debt?

Was the outcome of the 2013 administration process likely to have been affected by who the largest creditor was, even if the largest debt owed was on money put into the club or interest earned on that money?

Can a growing amount of interest debt owed to a creditor convey a benefit to that creditor in terms of retention of control of the business through an administration process through the ability to write off / agree to restructure more of that debt than any other bidders would or could and afford that creditor a stronger ability to dictate terms?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

That is an interesting suggestion.

I agree with your point at the top of the thread that In / Out may not reflect the nuance in the position that some supporters hold although I guess In / Out poll results are still informative in themselves.
I don't think the 'In' votes are indicative of a massive swing of opinion from the boos previously heard at Wembley that were aimed at Joy when the cameras turned to her and she came up on the giant screens to us hearing 'We love you SISU, we do' reverberating around Singers Corner anytime soon.
I do think some fans felt that the ownership protests weren't effective in applying the desired change and that ultimately the football club wasn't deriving any benefit from the protests even when those fans bought into the idea of a change of ownership.

These may well be stupid questions but I'm going to ask them anyway.

Does the process of building up a growing amount of interest debt in a business through a high rate of interest provide any less tangible benefits to the creditor owed that debt beyond the potential ability now and in the future to realise that interest debt?

Was the outcome of the 2013 administration process likely to have been affected by who the largest creditor was, even if the largest debt owed was on money put into the club or interest earned on that money?

Can a growing amount of interest debt owed to a creditor convey a benefit to that creditor in terms of retention of control of the business through an administration process through the ability to write off / agree to restructure more of that debt than any other bidders would or could and afford that creditor a stronger ability to dictate terms?

An expert would need to answer those

 

[oldskyblue58]

Very briefly

The purpose of the interest charge is to show an element of annual return within the ARVO & SISU Master funds for the investors in those funds. It also enables sisu to take a slice of that annual income as management fees usually a percentage of the income. Whether the interest is actually paid over or accrued is irrelevant to that. It is due so is part of any calculations for investors.

The loans are contractual and imo there is no chance that campaigning to reduce the interest would have any effect. It isnt about the benefit to the club but the benefit to the investors- I keep saying it the strategy is investors first, sisu second and ccfc further down the list.

Could ARVO or sisu master fund forgive the interest charge temporarily or permanently or stop charging it of course they could. In fact they could change the loans in to shares or write off entirely.

But if you were the investment managers to the funds would you advise them to ? Don't look at it from the ccfc point of view when answering that. Also don't forget 2 years ago ccfc started to pay down some of the interest and capital. You would and required to give best advice to the investors which I believe is to leave untouched and carry on.

Sisu have a dual role. Custodian of ccfc but above that advisors to their investors. It is the investors that must come first for sisu.

The biggest creditor is in control of any administration. ARVO is by far the biggest creditor and has been since Otium started trading.

Originally debt was built to protect the ownership from any legal challenge or attempt to purchase. It succeeded. It still provides protection but also is starting, excluding covid, to provide an investment return. They haven't been investing extra recently and over the last 4 years we know of have taken out more than they put in.

Caveat to that is the effect of covid in the 2021 financial statements however funding would be on a bank of last resort basis simply to keep going at the minimum cost to the investment funds.

Hope that answers the questions. Sorry Pete I wouldn't waste your time on the interest charge.

 

[SkyblueDad]

What would you want to ask her?

One simple question how much does it cost a year from Mark Robins to the tea lady to run the whole business of Coventry City Football Club that question could be put to Dave Boddy but I suspect it would be answered with waffle.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

One simple question how much does it cost a year from Mark Robins to the tea lady to run the whole business of Coventry City Football Club that question could be put to Dave Boddy but I suspect it would be answered with waffle.

They'd point you towards the accounts.

 

[Grendel]

They'd point you towards the accounts.

exactly- other than football related matters regarding match day etc I see little that should be asked. It’s probably worthwhile highlighting the policy of low numbers of back room staff to support commercial activity makes us amateurs at this level

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

One simple question how much does it cost a year from Mark Robins to the tea lady to run the whole business of Coventry City Football Club that question could be put to Dave Boddy but I suspect it would be answered with waffle.

Why though? Different faces, same answers - Boddy just says whatever Sepalla and SISU tell him to

 

[Grendel]

Why though? Different faces, same answers - Boddy just says whatever Sepalla and SISU tell him to

Of course. Boddy has had an easy ride as we’ve over achieved but in the end he’s a glorified commercial manager whose not really anything but a friendly voice to the media - if he’s paid more than £30 grand a year it’s wasted money

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Of course. Boddy has had an easy ride as we’ve over achieved but in the end he’s a glorified commercial manager whose not really anything but a friendly voice to the media - if he’s paid more than £30 grand a year it’s wasted money

Harsh

 

[skybluetony176]

Of course. Boddy has had an easy ride as we’ve over achieved but in the end he’s a glorified commercial manager whose not really anything but a friendly voice to the media - if he’s paid more than £30 grand a year it’s wasted money

Overachieved? Why all the calls for Taxis then?

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

Harsh

He has improved communication and managed to sort a deal back to the Ricoh. However, there are no signs of progress on a new ground and the outlook off the pitch remains as bleak as ever