Sisu you are a disgrace... (5 Viewers)

Ah, saviours Ashdown. Didn't they immediately sack Dowie, a a manager with a 40%+ win ratio, and we're now with a manager, who - for a number of issues - is only managing just over 20%? Saviours? Aren't they - by definition - meant to help the situation?

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

Ah, saviours Ashdown. Didn't they immediately sack Dowie, a a manager with a 40%+ win ratio, and we're now with a manager, who - for a number of issues - is only managing just over 20%? Saviours? Aren't they - by definition - meant to help the situation?

Click to expand...

For they substitute Ranson. The "football man" was given authority over all football matters and proved mistake number one (and the most costly).

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

Ah, saviours Ashdown. Didn't they immediately sack Dowie, a a manager with a 40%+ win ratio, and we're now with a manager, who - for a number of issues - is only managing just over 20%? Saviours? Aren't they - by definition - meant to help the situation?

Click to expand...

Sisu didn't sack Dowie ... Ranson did.
Later sisu sacked Ranson.

Put the blame where it belongs - otherwise you are building your resentment on false premisses.

Ray Ranson was SISU's appointed representative, and given head to make the decisions he did. As such, surely they have to accept responsibility for actions? Certainly, legally they would, so why not morally?

We've had a number of threads on this subject.

The posters who (choosing my words carefully) are more supportive of SISU, tend to come from the point of view that the club has to be run within its financial means and therefore they are doing a realistic/good job.

My background is as an accountant and I have had many years as an FD. Consequently I am very supportive of the need to run the club on sensible financial grounds. However I think thst SISU are doing a very poor job.

Why the dichotomy?

Any idiot can cut costs, there is nothing simpler. It takes skill and good sense however, to know which costs can be cut, how fast they can be cut and when a little extra investment is required for the long term good of the business. This skill and good sense is what has - in my view - been sadly lacking over the last 12 months or so.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:

Ray Ranson was SISU's appointed representative, and given head to make the decisions he did. As such, surely they have to accept responsibility for actions? Certainly, legally they would, so why not morally?

Click to expand...

Hedge fund companies are hands off organisations who buy cheap and sell at a profit. Of course they can be criticised for appointing Ranson however, Ranson was the key player who persuaded them that investing in football was a potential source of income and profit. He had no interest in the club, we were last in a fairly long line. Morality is an odd choice of words and I think would apply more to The Football Man than the bank which he was gladly prepared to use to pursue his own self interest.

interesting...........

You see I think that there is no good reason for the budgets not to be agreed, therefore no good reason for the accounts not to be filed, and hence no good reason for the embargo. I agree a couple of extra players may have made a difference..... but they may not. There are no guarantees in football.

a possible alternative view......

We as fans can stamp our feet, shout and scream about investment but in the end what actual right do we have to expect or demand that someone else spends 10's of thousands to keep us happy. But wait would we be happy ? no of course not, it wont be the right players, they wont play well enough, the manager wont use them enough, the manager will play one instead of other. The money spent so far on players, recommended by the various managers, endorsed by the various boards have not exactly been a success overall - or do we see bouncing around at the bottom of the championship year after year as success? Is it any wonder after supporting the losses for 4 years - please do not say they havent because it is a fact that they have - SISU have instigated cost cuttings, a change of internal management and financial structure and focussed on the business surviving. Thats not surviving the next two months...... thats taking a longer term view setting up the business to survive over a number of years. That means less focus on the pitch by the owners, more focus on financial living within means.

There is a good arguement for saying loan players could have made a difference to the team on the run in ...... there is also a good arguement to say that previous player incomings have not made a great difference and money has been wasted (none more so than the £3m plus it has cost for Eastwoods services). AT has said players became not available or turned us down - so taking him at his word it isnt that we didnt try to get players in. But take a step back and actually look at it from SISU's point of view .... no more money from their investors, players that have come in have not changed our league position, 3 months of no income coming up, a team that could be seen to have under performed much of the season because every so often they really match a top team, the real possibility of going down etc etc .......... these are money men they batten down the risk hatches and act accordingly, they dont throw money at it in this situation, we dont like it but thats the mentality surely we should be used to it by now? (personally think it is short sighted because any successful business needs targeted investment on a regular basis)

other thoughts.........

If Eastwood had played he could have made the difference - but no he let himself down and the club. Think of the players we could have had for the season by using the money we spent on him. That is what £500k (estimate) SISU have picked up in cost for no return this season alone. (they should have addressed costs properly from day 1 not day 1095!)

No they dont have the same passion as us for the team ..... for them it is cold hard £ signs. But why would any unknown investors be passionate about the club ? The investors GH is trying to get in are not passionate about CCFC - dont kid yourself they are please.

We dont have any money ......... oh and we dont have any money. We have had no success for years. We have no assets but owe millions. Their strategy is squeezing costs till the pips pops - there are costs with any loan btw - and making do with what we have. SISU have drip fed the cash yes - because the original plan didnt require them to be drip feeding anything by now - that plan failed. In the mean time SISU had to make plans and run their own business and investments through a recession - world didnt stop whilst CCFC sorted itself out. CCFC got the sums wrong and that means drip feed from SISU as a last resort - all other options utilised first. Hard financial control with no real vision in my opinion

People keep saying about mis management by SISU, misdemeanours, need to investigate etc ............ so I have a question proof? What they actually mean is that SISU have not done what they wanted them to do - that is not proof of mis management. There is a little thing called the Insolvency Act which places responsibility on directors and owners. Given that there are no more major funds from SISU available, given they are the last resort what did you expect them to do?.

in my opinion..........

I would have loved to get a couple of loan players in, maybe they could have made a difference - but it was never going to happen in my view. But loan players are not the only thing that could have made the difference - there is so much more to our plight than that or simply just SISU

not saying SISU have got it right - think they have got a lot of things, particularly timing of funding etc wrong. But I can understand the why they are doing things

DazzleTommydazzle..................Excellent post..........my viewpoint exactly.

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

We've had a number of threads on this subject.

The posters who (choosing my words carefully) are more supportive of SISU, tend to come from the point of view that the club has to be run within its financial means and therefore they are doing a realistic/good job.

My background is as an accountant and I have had many years as an FD. Consequently I am very supportive of the need to run the club on sensible financial grounds. However I think thst SISU are doing a very poor job.

Why the dichotomy?

Any idiot can cut costs, there is nothing simpler. It takes skill and good sense however, to know which costs can be cut, how fast they can be cut and when a little extra investment is required for the long term good of the business. This skill and good sense is what has - in my view - been sadly lacking over the last 12 months or so.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone really supports SISU. As an organisation I think most would say they are unsuited to this and probably most industries. They have very few direct employees and effectively seem to purchase businesses and aim a swift turn around into profit but seem to have little expertise themselves in any of the areas they get involved. The fact they were persuaded to purchase this club raises questions about their competency in itself. We were hardly a low risk purchase.

You make reference to a little extra investment but the grim reality is we have always "invested" in players, managers etc. over the last few years. Many of the investments have proved worthless and the clubs revenue has continued to decline. Anyone contemplating true investment would look at us and run a mile.

kduffy said:

I don't think anyone really supports SISU. As an organisation I think most would say they are unsuited to this and probably most industries. They have very few direct employees and effectively seem to purchase businesses and aim a swift turn around into profit but seem to have little expertise themselves in any of the areas they get involved. The fact they were persuaded to purchase this club raises questions about their competency in itself. We were hardly a low risk purchase.

You make reference to a little extra investment but the grim reality is we have always "invested" in players, managers etc. over the last few years. Many of the investments have proved worthless and the clubs revenue has continued to decline. Anyone contemplating true investment would look at us and run a mile.

Click to expand...

As I said, I tried to choose my words carefully, hence "more supportive"- everything is relative...

You're correct in the way that SISU will work. I've bought and sold businesses with private equity support and they do generally take a "hands off" approach. However, they will also (almost certainly) have a shareholders' agreement that will give them final sign off on all significant (and the threshold for "significant" is often very low) decisions. It is in this context that I believe (from what we can see from the outside) that they have "strangled" the club.

I did indeed make reference to a little extra investment. You are correct that we have invested over the last few years. Perhaps that is what has enabled us to avoid relegation and hence avoid the loss of (I believe) some £4m per annum in Championship related income.

I seem to remember Ranson being part owner not a sisu appointment.

Cost cutting should have started day 1, most of the investment went to pay the bills of last board. £10m loss in the first few months after the takeover. At least the next owners wont have that problem.

Also, be interesting to see how many subs Portsmouth have on Sat as the league rules state they can sign players if they haven't got the minimum 14 players (11 plus 3 subs) available to stage a match.

So, that would mean they should have a subs bench with only 3 players and 2 of the squad must be these 2 new signings.

OSB, can you check your reply from the football league on this?

this is what the League told me crowsnest

Any football club that is in administration will be subject to a transfer registrations embargo. The principle being that where clubs are not able to afford their current playing squad they are not permitted to sign anyone else.In view of any embargo The Football League cannot allow a club to sign any new players, unless they are unable to field a team, i.e. name fourteen fit players for any match (11 starters plus 3 ‘usable outfield substitutes’ – which is usual Football League policy). However, we only take account of players with any first team experience and young professionals who haven’t played at first team level are therefore discounted.

Just wondering if it was us in administration would we be getting away with what Pompey are.

coop said:

Just wondering if it was us in administration would we be getting away with what Pompey are.

Click to expand...

Our youngsters have first team experience though, if we hadn't ever played Bigi, Christie and Thomas then we could probably get away with it.

oldskyblue58 said:

... not saying SISU have got it right - think they have got a lot of things, particularly timing of funding etc wrong. But I can understand the why they are doing things.

Click to expand...

Their initial investment plan failed and subsequently money pool has dryed out. As you mention in your post, the world didn't stop and the financial crisis have removed most money available for investments in the western world. The little money that is available is not spend on high risk businesses running with permanent losses.

As the original plan was abandoned a year ago or so and with new investors hard to find (and charm) there is one route to take, and only one: Do whatever it takes to get the club into black figures.
If you have bought a 3 story house and an earthcrake damage the foundation it stands on, then you don't plan too much on decorating the top floor. You tear down as much as necessary to be able to repair the foundation ... then you can rebuild.

But it's very interesting how everybody are obsessed with sisu. Yes, they have made mistakes - the biggest was to get involved in the first place.
I won't say that having a hands off approach was a mistake. Ranson was co-owner and had the experience to run the club, so how could a bunch of bankers, who probably can't explain the off-side rule, do better?

Others have made mistakes. The referee who cancelled a perfect good goal. McSheffrey and Clingan who missed the last two penalties. Thorn with his lack of substitutions in earlier matches ... to name just a few mistakes made by other than sisu and that have actually cost us enough points to put us in the relegation position.

torchomatic said:

Why are 99% of your posts concerned with attacking your fellow fans? I'm genuinely interested.

Click to expand...

i agree with him, most cov fans don't seem to give a dam, for the size of cov we should be getting at least 25,000 gate, the fans of some clubs i could mention would have rioted if their club had been treated the way sisuscum has treated cov, also valient15 has only mentioned this because he wants cov fans to get their collective finger out and do something....

NINOOVCOV said:

i agree with him, most cov fans don't seem to give a dam, for the size of cov we should be getting at least 25,000 gate, the fans of some clubs i could mention would have rioted if their club had been treated the way sisuscum has treated cov, also valient15 has only mentioned this because he wants cov fans to get their collective finger out and do something....

Click to expand...

Well I for one am proud of my fellow Cov fans that they haven't resorted to rioting.

Godiva said:

As the original plan was abandoned a year ago or so and with new investors hard to find (and charm) there is one route to take, and only one: Do whatever it takes to get the club into black figures.
If you have bought a 3 story house and an earthcrake damage the foundation it stands on, then you don't plan too much on decorating the top floor. You tear down as much as necessary to be able to repair the foundation ... then you can rebuild.

Click to expand...

The problem is that your analogy doesn't work.

If you rebuild your house, you'll end up with a house in the same location that it started in.

If you keep cutting costs in a football club what location (division) will you be in by the time you hit breakeven. League 1 probably, League 2 possibly. If we're still making a loss in League 2 do you keep on cutting costs until you reach the Conference?

As I posted earlier in this thread, I've no problem with financial stability. I have a problem with owners who appear not to understand that their cuts are likely to lead to a significant loss of income (relegation will cost us £4m+ per annum) which will then presumably (as SISU have given us no idea what their plan is) to further cuts.

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

We've had a number of threads on this subject.

The posters who (choosing my words carefully) are more supportive of SISU, tend to come from the point of view that the club has to be run within its financial means and therefore they are doing a realistic/good job.

My background is as an accountant and I have had many years as an FD. Consequently I am very supportive of the need to run the club on sensible financial grounds. However I think thst SISU are doing a very poor job.

Why the dichotomy?

Any idiot can cut costs, there is nothing simpler. It takes skill and good sense however, to know which costs can be cut, how fast they can be cut and when a little extra investment is required for the long term good of the business. This skill and good sense is what has - in my view - been sadly lacking over the last 12 months or so.

Click to expand...

Spot on.

There is either no long term interest in the club at all or the club is being managed very badly indeed. Maybe even both. This appears to be the reason for example that the likes of Hoffman resigned when it looked like they were forcing the sale of Conor Thomas.

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

If you keep cutting costs in a football club what location (division) will you be in by the time you hit breakeven. League 1 probably, League 2 possibly. If we're still making a loss in League 2 do you keep on cutting costs until you reach the Conference?

Click to expand...

What's the alternative?

More loans?
We're very fortunate that the loans we have atm are interest free (although that is also a stumbling block for any take-over attempt, as the loans would have to be repaid or stay in the books and start charging interests).

When is enough really enough?

Godiva said:

What's the alternative?

More loans?
We're very fortunate that the loans we have atm are interest free (although that is also a stumbling block for any take-over attempt, as the loans would have to be repaid or stay in the books and start charging interests).

When is enough really enough?

Click to expand...

I get a little frustrated by the comments that "the loans will have to be repaid.....".

Why?

They are part of SISU's investment into the business. They have managed the business very badly and as a consequence it is worth very little.

If you really think that there is anyone out there who believes that the business is worth £30m+ (as reported), could you please forward their details to me as I have a number of investment schemes that I'm sure they'd be interested in .

As for "the alternative" - this is a business with few assets. Its main one is its Championship status and the revenue that that brings. A modest investment to increase the chances of retaining that status and hence the revenue - to me that makes absolute business sense

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

I get a little frustrated by the comments that "the loans will have to be repaid.....".

Why?

They are part of SISU's investment into the business. They have managed the business very badly and as a consequence it is worth very little.

If you really think that there is anyone out there who believes that the business is worth £30m+ (as reported), could you please forward their details to me as I have a number of investment schemes that I'm sure they'd be interested in .

As for "the alternative" - this is a business with few assets. Its main one is its Championship status and the revenue that that brings. A modest investment to increase the chances of retaining that status and hence the revenue - to me that makes absolute business sense

Click to expand...

The loans have to be repaid or serviced because they are just that ... loans.
Oh, and it isn't sisu's money - the money comes from various sources, probably even your own pension fund.

The beauty of injecting 'investments' in form of loans as opposed to equity is that as long as the loans are serviced, they actually hold their value in creditors books. Whereas share value would decrease as the business keep losing money.

So, you're right about the club not being worth £30m+ ... but that will reflect in the share price, not in the loans.
The clubs shares were bought for £1 or thereabout and will command about the same if sold.

You ask for a modest investment ...
How many times over the last couple of years do you think the board have asked for more money ... just a modest investment to keep us going, to buy a 'King' player, to loan a replacement for one of the three injured left backs, to replace the useless manager (they installed themself) ....
I think that list is already too long.

AFCCOVENTRY said:

Fecking disgrace you didn't submit our accounts on time.

Bristol City have signed 2 new players today
Pompey have signed some new players

It would not have cost us much money in getting 1 or 2 fresh players for this last push.

You continue to hamper the team and manager in every way possible.

Fecking disgrace you lot.

I will concentrate on supporting the team till the death either way but our battle with you will continue once our fate is known.

I'll be back... :jerkit:

Click to expand...

Just seen on sky sports portsmouth have taken Gabor Gyepes and Tom Williams on trial with a view to offering them deals

Godiva said:

The loans have to be repaid or serviced because they are just that ... loans.
Oh, and it isn't sisu's money - the money comes from various sources, probably even your own pension fund.

The beauty of injecting 'investments' in form of loans as opposed to equity is that as long as the loans are serviced, they actually hold their value in creditors books. Whereas share value would decrease as the business keep losing money.

So, you're right about the club not being worth £30m+ ... but that will reflect in the share price, not in the loans.
The clubs shares were bought for £1 or thereabout and will command about the same if sold.

You ask for a modest investment ...
How many times over the last couple of years do you think the board have asked for more money ... just a modest investment to keep us going, to buy a 'King' player, to loan a replacement for one of the three injured left backs, to replace the useless manager (they installed themself) ....
I think that list is already too long.

Click to expand...

OK - let's try and answer your points in turn.

The reason that PE companies put in loans rather than equity is because of the favourable tax treatment. If/when the owned company makes profit, the PE company charges it interest so reducing the taxable profits and hence reducing the corporation tax bill. The interest will then normally be paid to a company in a country with a "friendly" tax regime for investment companies - when I was last involved, Luxembourg was very popular.

As for the book-keeping, I don't know which form of GAAP SISU prepare their accounts under, but I'd be amazed if they haven't taken a (hefty) write-down on the reported £30m loans. I can't believe that they expect to get a significant proportion of that money back.

You appear to be suggesting that any potential buyer of the club would negotiate a price for the shares with SISU and then accept that the loans will have to be repaid. Anyone with any financial knowledge who did that would probably be have to be certified (in the mental health way, not the accountancy qualification). Any deal would be done in totality. I think everyone accepts that the shares are worthless (give or take the nominal £1), so negotiation will be about how much SISU get for their loans and on what terms (i.e. how much is deferred and how much is on a contingency basis).

Yes I think a modest investment would have made sense - if we weren't under an embargo for not filing our accounts (again). As I said in the earlier post, our Championship status is worth some £4m per annum and I think that is worth trying to save.

Your view is that no more investment should take place, "the list is already too long". So, if we go down I can only presume that your view is that we must then make immediate further cuts of at least £4m (gate receipts will probably fall as well - at least due to smaller away followings at the Ricoh) as otherwise more investment would be required to fill the gap. This will almost certainly entail a significant number of player departures leading to the possibility/probability that we will struggle in League One. And so the spiral of decline continues, until when?

Well a few cost reductions will happen due to contracts expiring.

1) Fredy, reputedly £1M p.a.
2) Clingan, he will get a new club, another £250,000 p.a. surely.
3) Cranie, we all know the paper talk about re-signing is just talk, he'll be off back to Southampton if he can, failing that Cardiff I'd think, another £250,000 p.a..
4) Keogh, will be sold to help balance the books, that will be another £250,000 wages and a fee of £250,000
5) It is possible McPake/ROD are off loaded to Hibs. Another £250,000 for the pair.

We wll have to get replacements in, but at 1/3 the cost I'd say.

We have a net transfer income too from selling Juke and Turner, nothing is paid 100% up front, so there will be some payments to come.

In total, should be half the required '£4M' savings just there. It is how they make up the rest that worries me, Thomas, Bigi, Cameron.

Nice one Tommy.

For those supporting SISU, there is no end to where their cost cutting can relegate us.

We need them out of here as soon as our season is done. If we're relegated or safe with a game or 2 to spare, then it's time to give them a big reminder that they are not wanted.

@richh87 said:

Nice one Tommy.

For those supporting SISU, there is no end to where their cost cutting can relegate us.

We need them out of here as soon as our season is done. If we're relegated or safe with a game or 2 to spare, then it's time to give them a big reminder that they are not wanted.

Click to expand...

Of course and let's replace them with the fool with the binoculars who started this in the first place and the "fantastic businessman" who conducts his takeover talk in the Casino or on trains coming back from away games and whose personal investment is as much as you and me...yes I can't wait.

Cant help but think that SISU are sitting somewhere laughing the balls off at us having no stomach for a fight against these bastards. Would they do this to a bigger sized club instead of a medium sized club such as ourselfs.... would they bollocks.

The tactic is to balance the books and shit to the football. They dont have a clue on how to run a club and will end up losing the lot come June. I would rather start again in the conference than have these toads in charge and have some hope. If we stay up this season all we are doing us delaying the inevatable next season.

Back to the epathy in the 'fight' to remove SISU? Only on the last game of the season will it hit home what they have done. SISU have brought shame on themselfs due to there inability to follow a plan that was in place.

CCFC123 said:

Cant help but think that SISU are sitting somewhere laughing the balls off at us having no stomach for a fight against these bastards. Would they do this to a bigger sized club instead of a medium sized club such as ourselfs.... would they bollocks.

.

Click to expand...

What do you suggest? Liquidation? Only option if no buyer is in town.

kduffy said:

What do you suggest? Liquidation? Only option if no buyer is in town.

Click to expand...

To fuckin right if it means these clowns are in charge for the next five years! Yes liquidation if it means a fresh start and a new beginning.

edgy said:

The "we're skint" argument doesn't apply in this debate. Portsmouth aren't paying a penny for any of their current loans. Had we not been under an embargo, we could've got more bodies in.

Click to expand...

And they are a disgrace and the Football League a disgrace for allowing it. What is being allowed to happen at Portsmouth is all that is indicative of the rot in football.

Time for a dose of financial reality - let us run the club within its means for long term prosperity so we have a club - and if that means we have to go to Div 1 for a short period to unburden some of the debt - then so what.

Blame the owners all you like but it does not wash. We run within our means or we lose our club.

ccfcdan said:

The people of Coventry have a choice wether to come and support there club or not. The owners of the club should support the club as they choose to purchase it. Quite simple really isnt it.

Click to expand...

Your definition of support by the owners:

1. Pump loads of cash in the placate the whims of feckless fans like you despite the business being unsustainable or
2. Run the club within its financial confines and manage expectation within those parametres.

Option 2 for me every time.

@richh87 said:

The fans came because we were enjoying success - and success requires investment. That's the point here.

All we need are decent owners.

Click to expand...

Ah - the glory hunters. Says it all Rich. Come and watch your team when they are winning. Shout for heads to role, protests, boycott and demand people to lose their jobs when the team is losing - like your style.

Me - I am there supporting my team and the owners (whoever) through thick and thin - it is called being a fan.

kduffy said:

I don't think anyone really supports SISU. As an organisation I think most would say they are unsuited to this and probably most industries. They have very few direct employees and effectively seem to purchase businesses and aim a swift turn around into profit but seem to have little expertise themselves in any of the areas they get involved. The fact they were persuaded to purchase this club raises questions about their competency in itself. We were hardly a low risk purchase.

You make reference to a little extra investment but the grim reality is we have always "invested" in players, managers etc. over the last few years. Many of the investments have proved worthless and the clubs revenue has continued to decline. Anyone contemplating true investment would look at us and run a mile.

Click to expand...

I agree Duff - does anyone support the owners?

Chelsea fans are taking on Abramovich over the ground relocation; Leeds hate bates; Man Utd hate the Americans; Blackburn hate the Venkys and so on and so on - We fans support the team. We tolerate the owners. We do not have to like them.

Coventry is not an investment - the cost to buy the ground et al is ludicrous and you will see no return. We should be grateful we have some mug owner prepared to keep pumping cash in !!!!

CCFC123 said:

To feckin right if it means these clowns are in charge for the next five years! Yes liquidation if it means a fresh start and a new beginning.

Click to expand...

Liquidation means no club. Is that what we want?