I would accept £1 in their (SISU) position; they're losing (not investing!) heaps of money every week and are hated by a majority of fans.
Here's a little lesson in finance and economics:
The loans SISU have made to the club holds it's full value for SISU as long as they are serviced according to the conditions. As the conditions are without periodic rates and without interests, the club can not mis-service the loans and so the loans will keep their full value for SISU.
This means that SISU are actually
investing and not
losing money.
Only of course they don't think they've lost anything, only the club;-trust me, they intend to make us somehow pay up all the money they wasted by failing to back the original vision. And if they don't get it, they'll kill the club.
The original vision as you call it was made together with Ranson and a key element with any vision/plan is the budget. As Ranson failed to deliver on the budget it is quite normal that investors held back on further investments until there's a reasonable chance the new money will support a new/revised budget.
This is the key to understand the relationship between SISU and Ranson. Ranson's role was dual. He was a minority investor as well as acting CEO. He was responsible for staying within the budget and when he failed, he - as investor - agreed to a new loan where he delivered a portion according to his share position. BUT - think about this - why did the loan provided by ranson held an interest condition, while the loans from SISU does not???
This leads me to your sentence:
... they intend to make us somehow pay up all the money they wasted ...'
I can't see any evidence that SISU intend (malicious) to make us pay - quite on the contrary. There's certainly nothing to suggest they intend to kill our club.
They deserve ther money back as much as all those people who lose money making bad business decisions.
They made a poor investment decision as they trusted the people in charge of the business. The people in charge of the business made bad business decisions.
It really is ironic that a firm who profit from others' misery are completely incapable of playing by the "fair" rules of the capitalist market when it hurts them instead of gives them something for "free".
Well, I think you have seen Wall Street to many times. Hedge Funds are there to turn around business'es in perils. They provide funds where banks and other investors don't. The risks are high and only if they succeed to turn the company around will the gain a (high) profit. If they don't succeed they will sell what they can but end up losing money anyway.
Finally, as there is relatively quite from both Brody and the Hoffman brigade you should take this as a good sign - they may actually be sitting around a table negotiating either a take over or a joint venture.