John B Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 From the Echo http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4345420.The___40m_takeover_bid_that_Saints_turned_down/ As I dont live in Soton any more and cannot get an echo could somebody please provide a summary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 (edited) Well a figure of £40m looks good on paper but in reality they (SISU) where offering around £12m i think only as input. The major Shareholders wanted to know what else was going to happen. SISU refused to answer any questions on anything. So the major shareholders rightly in my eyes turned the weak offer down. Coventry at the time where in a far worse position than us and really looking at them hardly anyhthing of note has come from SISU. Edited 7 May, 2009 by TNT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I still maintain that SISU were only really interested in Coventry. I suspect they used us as 'bait' to frighten Coventry into accepting their proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I still maintain that SISU were only really interested in Coventry. I suspect they used us as 'bait' to frighten Coventry into accepting their proposal. Disagree - investors are primarily interested in assets. Coventry had none then and they have none now. The ground is still owned by the council. SISU took on the debts that the club had accrued (don't think they paid any of them off, they just underwrote them). They spent a bit of money in the summer - the actual total is unclear as there are loads of undisclosed fees, although the two transfers that had disclosed fees totalled £1.7m. My understanding of the SISU offer for us involved a share placing that would a) pump somewhere in the region of £10-12m directly into the club (£12m for the shares less the various fees involved), but b) dilute the shareholdings of the existing shareholders. When Lowe, Wilde and Crouch wrote that open letter to SISU asking for further details, I expect they were pretty ****ed off that they'd not conducted business in private like most people would have done, but I'm led to believe that they did request a personal meeting with the "big 3", which was either ignored or rejected. It was at this point that SISU decided that they weren't going to get enough support, so backed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I am not even convinced either that SISU where that interestedin SFC. They seemed to be in more dialogue with Coventry. Ray Ranson lives one hrs drive from Coventry which im sure played a part. In a couple of seasons it will be worth doing a check on Coventry and see what Ranson has put into the club to make promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ron fan Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 However much SISU has put into Coventry, subsequent events have shown that it was another dreadful decision not to accept their offer. Look at what has happened to the two clubs since that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I wonder what the shareholders would prefer if you asked them now, a diluted shareholding or no shareholding....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I am not even convinced either that SISU where that interestedin SFC. They seemed to be in more dialogue with Coventry. Ray Ranson lives one hrs drive from Coventry which im sure played a part. In a couple of seasons it will be worth doing a check on Coventry and see what Ranson has put into the club to make promotion. I prefer stevegrant's version of affairs as that is how I viewed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 However much SISU has put into Coventry, subsequent events have shown that it was another dreadful decision not to accept their offer. Look at what has happened to the two clubs since that time. Coventry lost over £8million last season with no income from a stadium they do not own, maybe next season will se a similar version to this one of ours and Leicester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I am not even convinced either that SISU where that interestedin SFC. They seemed to be in more dialogue with Coventry. Ray Ranson lives one hrs drive from Coventry which im sure played a part. In a couple of seasons it will be worth doing a check on Coventry and see what Ranson has put into the club to make promotion. I think that's complete ******, SISU were after the best deal possible, wether it's Saints or Coventry IMO. Unless they have some weird fetish for clubs with a Sky Blue kit there is no reason why Coventry is more attractive than Saints. Our main shareholders turned it down because their own selfish greedy reasons and SFC face possible extinction as a result. Whatever Ranson and co put into Coventry, their situation is a million times better than ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 In the long term, Coventry and SISU will collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 In the long term, Coventry and SISU will collapse. We've collapsed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Isnt there a difference that the Coventry bid was a joint input from Ranson and SISU Capital; where as the Saints bid was with money from SISU only, with Ranson being the "frontman" for the bid who was then going to walk away? At least, that was my understanding at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I think that's complete ******, SISU were after the best deal possible, wether it's Saints or Coventry IMO. Unless they have some weird fetish for clubs with a Sky Blue kit there is no reason why Coventry is more attractive than Saints. Our main shareholders turned it down because their own selfish greedy reasons and SFC face possible extinction as a result. Whatever Ranson and co put into Coventry, their situation is a million times better than ours. I said that Coventry where in a worse position than us at the time which made the offer to them very desperate to take. The major shareholders turned it down because of a lack of information. They wanted to know what would happen in say two years time financially. Is there any sort of 5 year plan etc. SISU would not answer any questions as detailed in a meeting held in a hotel in Runnymeade. Lets just see like i said what happens at Coventry in the next couple of years before making judgement on this Ranson offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Another un answered question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Well a figure of £40m looks good on paper but in reality they (SISU) where offering around £12m i think only as input. The major Shareholders wanted to know what else was going to happen. SISU refused to answer any questions on anything. So the major shareholders rightly in my eyes turned the weak offer down. Coventry at the time where in a far worse position than us and really looking at them hardly anyhthing of note has come from SISU. Survival not good enough for you ffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I still maintain that SISU were only really interested in Coventry. I suspect they used us as 'bait' to frighten Coventry into accepting their proposal. Ive said the same thing, they seemed to be interested in cov for quite a long time and interested in us for about 5 mins right when cov desperatly needed someone to buy them. I dont think cov got a very good deal but they were in a position where there only interested party was sniffing round another club. Im not saying I think Steve Grant is wrong as his version sounds just as plausable so maybe there is a mix of both versions that is close to the truth? I defo dont think SISU's interest in us was all that and if they were still without a club now they still wouldnt buy us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Bid or No bid, the players took us down anyway! The players who were picked and played in positions by Portaloo and then Wotte, who in turn were installed by Lowe and Wilde, took us down yes. If, for example, a new owner comes in and installs Lucy Pinder as 'head coach' and she plays a whole host of models who look nice but cannot kick a ball and we go down to League 2 with -10 points and a GD of -250 whose fault would it be: the players?; Lucy's?; or the new owners? As for the SISU bid I was quite pleased at the time that we didn't take it, however, I would much rather be in Coventry's position now than ours. (i.e. mid-table CCC and without a -10 start to next season). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I said that Coventry where in a worse position than us at the time which made the offer to them very desperate to take. The major shareholders turned it down because of a lack of information. They wanted to know what would happen in say two years time financially. Is there any sort of 5 year plan etc. SISU would not answer any questions as detailed in a meeting held in a hotel in Runnymeade. Lets just see like i said what happens at Coventry in the next couple of years before making judgement on this Ranson offer. Well perhaps the "3 Amigos" were being at their obstructive best again ! Perhaps if SISU were engaged better they would have shown more inclination to want to do a deal. Whatever, Coventry are not in administration and we are.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Survival not good enough for you ffs? Well i have not even talked about 'survival' so i dont know why you mentioned that. The people running the Club at the time (executives) where a bunch of scumbags. They had bonuses lined up to push the deal through and couldnt give a toss about SFC. SFCs financial situation at the time was not good but it wasnt desperate to take such a ****e potless offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Well perhaps the "3 Amigos" were being at their obstructive best again ! Perhaps if SISU were engaged better they would have shown more inclination to want to do a deal. Whatever, Coventry are not in administration and we are.. They wanted answers to obvious questions on planning and finance. I suspect that will be detailed in the Daily Echo today. SISU where engagad as much as possible but our major shareholders where not going to succumb to a 'take it or leave it' written on a fag packet. Coventry where probably 24hrs away from admin in 2007 and we where not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 SFCs financial situation at the time was not good but it wasnt desperate to take such a ****e potless offer. History has proved you wrong on that one, if the 3 main shareholders had taken that offer we wouldn't be facing possible extinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Disagree - investors are primarily interested in assets. Coventry had none then and they have none now. The ground is still owned by the council. SISU took on the debts that the club had accrued (don't think they paid any of them off, they just underwrote them). They spent a bit of money in the summer - the actual total is unclear as there are loads of undisclosed fees, although the two transfers that had disclosed fees totalled £1.7m. My understanding of the SISU offer for us involved a share placing that would a) pump somewhere in the region of £10-12m directly into the club (£12m for the shares less the various fees involved), but b) dilute the shareholdings of the existing shareholders. When Lowe, Wilde and Crouch wrote that open letter to SISU asking for further details, I expect they were pretty ****ed off that they'd not conducted business in private like most people would have done, but I'm led to believe that they did request a personal meeting with the "big 3", which was either ignored or rejected. It was at this point that SISU decided that they weren't going to get enough support, so backed out. That all makes sense. How different life may have been mid table in the CCC with Coleman this season. Oh well. Onwards and upwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Lindford Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Coventry had nothing at the time and still have nothing. Yes they are in a league above us but I do not think the deal they were offering us was good enough, time will tell if it was the right decision when our new investment happens. The long term future is the most important thing not just to throw a bit of money in, as SISU have at Coventry, and settle for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I'm not too fussed SISU didn't get involved with Saints. Coventry finished with 8 more points than Saints: I am certain that under Pearson we would have finished with at least 8 more points than we did using the squad at his disposal and the money that was available. My view is that Coventry under-performed this season. Ranson is a businessman who makes his money from deals in football - insurance of players, brokering transfers etc.. He was used by consortiums, or thought he could make some money, in attempting to buy Man City, Aston Villa, Saints and finally Coventry. If we get a buyer who cares about SAINTS ahead of making money or raising their personal profile I will be pleased SISU lost interest in Saints, for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Coventry had nothing at the time and still have nothing. Yes they are in a league above us but I do not think the deal they were offering us was good enough, time will tell if it was the right decision when our new investment happens. The long term future is the most important thing not just to throw a bit of money in, as SISU have at Coventry, and settle for that. They are more than a league above us Linford. They are approximately 90 points, a squad of players and a manager above us too and only equal to us in infrastructure. Sorry but, Coventry will be a stage ahead of us for at least 3-4 years IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Whatever may happen in the future, from a personal point of view the shareholders would have been better off accepting the offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Whatever may happen in the future, from a personal point of view the shareholders would have been better off accepting the offer. Absolutely right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITKSaint Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 If we get a buyer who cares about SAINTS ahead of making money or raising their personal profile I will be pleased SISU lost interest in Saints, for whatever reason. Can't think of any other reasons anyone would buy a football club, think you're SOOL on these ideas personally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Well a figure of £40m looks good on paper but in reality they (SISU) where offering around £12m i think only as input. The major Shareholders wanted to know what else was going to happen. SISU refused to answer any questions on anything. So the major shareholders rightly in my eyes turned the weak offer down. Coventry at the time where in a far worse position than us and really looking at them hardly anyhthing of note has come from SISU. Nothing of note ....... apart from .... They are solvent They are still in the Championship They are building for the future Still, that doesn't count does it ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 If we get a buyer who cares about SAINTS ahead of making money or raising their personal profile I will be pleased SISU lost interest in Saints, for whatever reason. Exactly how bad does it need to get for Saints before you change your mind about the SISU deal? We face possible extinction, at the moment the club is being sold to the highest bidder, wether that's a property developer who wants to build flats on SMS or a billionaire - the administrators wont care one bit as long as the banks get their money. I said at the time that turning SISU down was like a drowning man turning down a life boat because he didn't like the colour of the seats. We were not in Coventry's situation but we were so obviously just a year or so way from being there with the club losing 1000's a week and with shareholders not willing to invest a penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Nothing of note ....... apart from .... They are solvent They are still in the Championship They are building for the future Still, that doesn't count does it ???Hindsight, the coventry fans I know are not happy and suspicious of their motives.When they failed to answer the clubs questions I suspect the club felt there werre others interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 From the Echo http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4345420.The___40m_takeover_bid_that_Saints_turned_down/ As I dont live in Soton any more and cannot get an echo could somebody please provide a summary There was a £40m takeover bid but we turned it down. We can't do anything about it now because it happened 2 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manzo Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Disagree - investors are primarily interested in assets. Coventry had none then and they have none now. The ground is still owned by the council. Only because they don't appear to have the money to buy the 50% of the stadium that they have an option on: http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/loadfeat.asp?cid=ED11&id=441616 So there's an asset waiting for them there, if they had the money. Personally, I think they were always more intereseted in Coventry, as they were practically bankrupt, so were always going to be cheaper to buy than we were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 They wanted answers to obvious questions on planning and finance. I suspect that will be detailed in the Daily Echo today. SISU where engagad as much as possible but our major shareholders where not going to succumb to a 'take it or leave it' written on a fag packet. Coventry where probably 24hrs away from admin in 2007 and we where not. Quite a good fag packet though .... Coventry are in the CCC, are solvent, and have a good Manager which may lead to better things Thank God for our Major Shareholders, who, for the umpteenth time, put their OWN personnal positions before the well being of SAINTS, and then allowed a proven "Non Investment" failed ex Chairman to return to lead us to the brink of oblivion .... Thankful We Are For Our Beloved Shareholders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Quite a good fag packet though .... Coventry are in the CCC, are solvent, and have a good Manager which may lead to better things Thank God for our Major Shareholders, who, for the umpteenth time, put their OWN personnal positions before the well being of SAINTS, and then allowed a proven "Non Investment" failed ex Chairman to return to lead us to the brink of oblivion .... Thankful We Are For Our Beloved ShareholdersTo be fair LC RL and MW asked questions about what their intentions were for the club longterm.They of course didnt know the financial meltdown would happen.I assume they were confident there were other options Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 However much SISU has put into Coventry, subsequent events have shown that it was another dreadful decision not to accept their offer. Look at what has happened to the two clubs since that time. Agreed. We should have taken the offer - think how different our season might have been this year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 In the long term, Coventry and SISU will collapse. Lucky them. We managed it in the short term. Great long term vision from our directors and shareholders there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 History has proved you wrong on that one, if the 3 main shareholders had taken that offer we wouldn't be facing possible extinction. IF Wilde came through with the investment........ IF Lowe's crazy ideas worked......... IF the Execs didnt spend so much........ IF Lawrie didnt get paid so much........ IF we didnt change the board as often as we changed managers....... IF Pearson had been here this sesaon........ IF our strikers knew where the goal is........ IF our defence did better....... IF any of the above had happened we wouldnt have been facing extintion either IMO. A whole load of shiite has gone on over the last god knows how many years and they have all had a part in putting us in this situation. I dont think turning down a carp offer from SISU is the defining reason we are in the crap TBH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 To be fair LC RL and MW asked questions about what their intentions were for the club longterm.They of course didnt know the financial meltdown would happen.I assume they were confident there were other options What a load of bollix! MW only this week stated he knew financial meltdown was going to happen the minute we got relegated from the Premiership! All this bluff and fluster just goes to show our previous 'leaders' have had me, me, me in mind since day one - all of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 IF Lawrie didnt get paid so much........ IF any of the above had happened we wouldnt have been facing extintion either IMO. A whole load of shiite has gone on over the last god knows how many years and they have all had a part in putting us in this situation. I dont think turning down a carp offer from SISU is the defining reason we are in the crap TBH People write some serious sh1t on here, but you my friend take some beating!! If you seriously think Lawrie's wages have driven us to bankruptcy you need to take a long swig on the Calpol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 IF any of the above had happened we wouldnt have been facing extintion either IMO. A whole load of shiite has gone on over the last god knows how many years and they have all had a part in putting us in this situation. I dont think turning down a carp offer from SISU is the defining reason we are in the crap TBH Exactly. I don't really understand why the echo feels the need to analyse it in so much detail, we should forget about it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I am not even convinced either that SISU where that interestedin SFC. They seemed to be in more dialogue with Coventry. Ray Ranson lives one hrs drive from Coventry which im sure played a part. In a couple of seasons it will be worth doing a check on Coventry and see what Ranson has put into the club to make promotion. Being within one hours drive for any multi million pound deal is about as significant as having a particular colour in the company's header. SISU made an offer for Saints, which if accepted would have gone through. There is little doubt that Saints at the time were a far more attractive package than Coventry, but a far greater problem in getting an agreement. SISU had decided to move for Coventry but would have preferred Saints if the conditions were correct. Because of the time issue with Coventry, everything had to be done quickly or the Coventry option would disappear for SISU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 People write some serious sh1t on here, but you my friend take some beating!! If you seriously think Lawrie's wages have driven us to bankruptcy you need to take a long swig on the Calpol to be fair allot of that was tongue in cheek comments made regarding some of the many rumours or statements that the masses have said over the last year or so. I have no idea on Lawries wages when he was here last and think even if they were as big as had been suggested they would still be a drop in the ocean compared to all the real problems. Just pointing out that there has been allot said in recent months and had any of it been handled differently things could have turned out very differently. Very easy to say with hindsight but at the time the people making the decisions did so thinking they were the best options. No use the echo or us lot harping on about what could have been IF this or that was or wasnt done is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Disagree - investors are primarily interested in assets. Coventry had none then and they have none now. The ground is still owned by the council. SISU took on the debts that the club had accrued (don't think they paid any of them off, they just underwrote them). They spent a bit of money in the summer - the actual total is unclear as there are loads of undisclosed fees, although the two transfers that had disclosed fees totalled £1.7m. I can confirm that as I know a company that deals with both clubs. RR is also despondent about the gates at Coventry (12-15k) and there was talk that he was still interested in the Saints when SLH went into admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ron fan Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Coventry lost over £8million last season with no income from a stadium they do not own, maybe next season will se a similar version to this one of ours and Leicester. ...and maybe it won't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Stripe Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 All that Coventry make on matchday is a seat 'sold' price and programmes sales - they also pay more than a £1million in rent per season. Their deal was easier as the council owned the ground, wheras, god know who owns our dept/stadium! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Why people are still argueing over this is beyond me.Take the emotion out of it and ask supporters of other Clubs whih position they would rather be in, ours or Cov's. It's a no brainer. I accept that Bill Gates or some sort of multi millionaire might take us over, but failing that the motives of any new owner will be the same as SISU's were (to make money). The fact is we're now a league lower, starting with -10 (possible more),unsure whether we'll even have a club, and throwing coins into buckets to pay the bills.Yet people still think we were right to turn down SISU-Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now