Back to being the biggest club in Coventry? (22 Viewers)

[Nick]

It's like chinese whispers on here with Nick making a comment and everybody running with it.
Have the forum but accept there are other views/opinions.
You can't put a post up and when it's challenged go crying to your mum.

because you challenge it with incorrect statements and bullshit

 

---

[italiahorse]

because you challenge it with incorrect statements and bullshit

Which incorrect statement ?
You need to point it out or your lapdogs will start salivating !!

 

[Nick]

Which incorrect statement ?
You need to point it out or your lapdogs will start salivating !!

Lapdogs? Is it maybe just the case that a lot of people think you are wrong.

Incorrect statements ie management fees etc that you roll out. On my phone so can't go back.

 

[italiahorse]

They didn't pay anything, technically the bond holders did.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

LOL. The bondholders are owed £35M it wasn't a gift !!!

 

[italiahorse]

Lapdogs? Is it maybe just the case that a lot of people think you are wrong.

Incorrect statements ie management fees etc that you roll out. On my phone so can't go back.

Nobody has disproved they are not taking management fees.
It adds to the debt, whether and when they take them is another matter.

 

[Nick]

Nobody has disproved they are not taking management fees.
It adds to the debt, whether and when they take them is another matter.

Your statement was taking them, it was one of many in accuracies. Added to the hypocrisy you can see why people disagree.

 

[italiahorse]

Your statement was taking them, it was one of many in accuracies. Added to the hypocrisy you can see why people disagree.

Theres £2M in the Otium accounts unexplained to me.
I don't trust them having fiddled the books previously.
When they have gone I will see what they take and then reflect my stance on this.

Drop the hypocrisy statement, Northampton is different to Wasps so its bollocks.
Sisu used us for their own gain and you went along with it like a lemming in a Sisu fur coat.

 

[Grendel]

Theres £2M in the Otium accounts unexplained to me.
I don't trust them having fiddled the books previously.
When they have gone I will see what they take and then reflect my stance on this.

Drop the hypocrisy statement, Northampton is different to Wasps so its bollocks.
Sisu used us for their own gain and you went along with it like a lemming in a Sisu fur coat.

A very serious accusation to an organisation known for its zest for court action. I do hope you can back this up with solid evidence.

 

[Moff]

Which incorrect statement ?
You need to point it out or your lapdogs will start salivating !!

Seriously you are a grown man. How can anybody ever have credibility in what you say if you resort to such childish crap?

 

[Moff]

We are at the Ricoh with Wasps for at least the next 10 years so we might as well build from there.

Sorry but where are the facts from to back up the ten year statement?

 

[stupot07]

Theres £2M in the Otium accounts unexplained to me.

You mean the same £2m that OSB has explained to you on a number of occasions including on this thread. Yawnarama

 

[italiahorse]

A very serious accusation to an organisation known for its zest for court action. I do hope you can back this up with solid evidence.

Don't make me laugh. They never win in court.

 

[italiahorse]

Sorry but where are the facts from to back up the ten year statement?

What's the plan then ?

 

[italiahorse]

You mean the same £2m that OSB has explained to you on a number of occasions including on this thread. Yawnarama

Yes thats the one. The £2M interest and other payments that may or may not affect our future ability to be bought.
You explain it ? I bet you can't.

 

[italiahorse]

Seriously you are a grown man. How can anybody ever have credibility in what you say if you resort to such childish crap?

He needs to show the incorrect statements not just mention them as a diversion every time I make a post he disagrees with.
What makes it worse is when he says it everybody then quotes him as if it's fact.

Sisu are masters of illusion in these matters and I refuse to accept that they are not tying our club in a debt that will restrict the sale of the club.

 

[stupot07]

Yes thats the one. The £2M interest and other payments that may or may not affect our future ability to be bought.
You explain it ? I bet you can't.

The interest is being accumulated but not being paid out, management fees is the movement of funding within the group accounts so is cost neutral.

OSB has explained all this a number of times. We are completely wrapped up in debt that's what happens when you've spent a couple of decades spending beyond your means.

You're just rehashing an old argument from this thread Fromm month ago

Happy New Year all

Not got a lot of time to get involved in this right now. Its my busiest month of the year with the self assessment deadline. So will just make a couple of statements that are based on the audited accounts that have been filed.

Bear in mind that the owners are specialists in debt. Also no debt was ever actually purchased only shares or assets. Group companies can legally move assets, losses, liabilities around the internal group if they see fit and the paperwork is correct - sometimes it will require the permission of a 3rd party creditor

- there is no evidence of management fees being taken outside of the group companies. The only management fees were between CCFC ltd (paid) and CCFC H Ltd (received) and that meant the monies stayed within the group.
- any management fees paid to 3rd parties including SISU or ARVO would be payments to a related party and should have been disclosed under the Companies Act in the notes to the accounts
- Interest has either been paid by the group to ARVO, The Arley Group (Ranson), or to the purchasers of Prozone who advanced funds to the SBS&L group
- the accumulated total amount "invested" by SISU investors goes as follows
2008 11.03m
2009 23.73m
2010 24.1m
2011 29.7m
2012 28.6m
2013 28.6m
2014 28.6m

- SISU investors have not put any more money in since 2012. According to the accounts they did not accrue any interest until 2012. That's accrue it was rolled up as a creditor/liability not physically paid out.
- It would seem that between 2011 and 2012 what they were owed decreased by £1.125m. So something has been repaid following sale of Prozone it would seem

by 31/05/13 ARVO had made loans to the Group of 13.3m. The following year some of this and the accrued interest was converted in to some of the preference shares that were issued. There is no reason why ARVO should not charge interest for the use of its money. It is not a substitute for management charges - for one thing ARVO are not involved in the management. Is ARVO 100% owned by SISU Capital who knows. The interest rate would appear to be well over 10% but the security for the money lent is pretty poor - interest rates reflect the security

At 31/05/2014 external debt for the group (it is the external debt that is important not what Otium owes SBS&L or even the shares SBS&L owns in Otium) stood at 36.7m plus preference shares of 14.2m. There were a lot more preference shares issued but the balance were issued internally from Otium to SBS&L. The preference shares are not voting capital but in effect a type of debt. SBS&L group is in the hole for over £50m. As otium are the only trading element then effectively that's Otium's hole

Got to be careful with some terminology too. Otium is trading within its cash flow means - cash neutral. that means it spends the cash it receives. That is not necessarily the same as saying the accounts are at breakeven. For instance the £1m in interest each year is being rolled up in to creditors and not actually paid out (up till 31/05/14) so no cash spent on it but it will appear as a cost on the accounts

Losses of the group
2008 3.9m
2009 8.2m
2010 5.8m
2011 16.1m
2012 4.0m
2013 7.2m
2014 8.3m

equates in total to the "hole" the group are in

There has been a lot of realignment going on in the accounts. All perfectly legal if somewhat difficult to keep a track of. Bottom line however is that CCFC or Otium or SBS&L or whatever you like to call it all is still a basket case

Did the losses from CCFC H need to be transferred to Otium? Personally I don't see why and I have an even harder time believing the FL insisted on it.... but that's just my opinion it could be the case that they did. But why laden a new set up with old historical debt that really was just figures on paper? Makes it harder to sell on surely?

I think saying the Ricoh is worth £48.5m is misleading. The long lease is worth 48.5m with Wasps owning it at the date of the valuation in the opinion of expert professional valuers for the purposes of providing security for a bond issue. It is not the sale value of the lease. Nor is it the value of the shares in ACL before the sale to Wasps. The lease forms part of the assets owned by ACL but the value of ACL shares (effectively the Ricoh) must also include all of the known liabilities of ACL too plus an assessment of its future as it stood without a major long term tenant of the stadium - when sold by CCC/AEGC. The value of ACL now is totally different to what it was before the sale to Wasps. Like it or not what went on with CCFC depressed the value and left ACL vulnerable and the opportunity was missed by the CCFC owners - I think they overplayed their hand badly

Hope that helps

 

[italiahorse]

The interest is being accumulated but not being paid out, management fees is the movement of funding within the group accounts so is cost neutral.

OSB has explained all this a number of times. We are completely wrapped up in debt that's what happens when you've spent a couple of decades spending beyond your means.

Yes I understand all that.
But I believe it will prevent the sale of the club at its actual value.
Sisu will not release it at its actual value until a big percentage of that debt is paid back.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

The interest is being accumulated but not being paid out, management fees is the movement of funding within the group accounts so is cost neutral.

OSB has explained all this a number of times. We are completely wrapped up in debt that's what happens when you've spent a couple of decades spending beyond your means.

You're just rehashing an old argument from this thread Fromm month ago

 

[italiahorse]

You're just rehashing an old argument from this thread Fromm month ago

Hold on, I never bought it up again, Nick just bought it up to try and degrade another discussion. Keep up.

Lapdogs? Is it maybe just the case that a lot of people think you are wrong.

Incorrect statements ie management fees etc that you roll out. On my phone so can't go back.

 

[Moff]

We are at the Ricoh with Wasps for at least the next 10 years so we might as well build from there.

Sorry but where are the facts from to back up the ten year statement?

What's the plan then ?

So is this where you answer a question, with a diverting question?

I dont know what the plan is. You obviously think you do, as you have stated above that we are at the Ricoh with Wasps for at least another ten years.

Again I will ask, what facts is this based on? as you are either in the know? or its another assumption? or in other words unfactual.

 

[italiahorse]

So is this where you answer a question, with a diverting question?

I dont know what the plan is. You obviously think you do, as you have stated above that we are at the Ricoh with Wasps for at least another ten years.

Again I will ask, what facts is this based on? as you are either in the know? or its another assumption? or in other words unfactual.

It's based on the time it takes to design, obtain planning permission and then build a new stadium and infrastructure (On Green Belt).
It's opinion and no where did I say it was a fact.

I'm pushing that we need to get the JR out the way and then build a relationship with Wasps so we can feel like the stadium is 'also' our home.

 

[torchomatic]

It will never be our home whilst Wasps are there. Those oversized Wasps signs show us quite categorically who are the main men.

When they fuck off somewhere for money then maybe it will be ours again.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[oldskyblue58]

is this still going :facepalm: ................ and so far off the original OP

Just to clear a few things & add the odd opinion (ie facts unless I say it is my opinion)

a) does it really matter who is the biggest, it proves what exactly, and what is the agreed measurement, today, this week , this month, this year - opinion

b) personal opinion but those waiting for Wasps to go bust I think are going to be waiting a very long time. CCFC do not have the resources to wait that out.

c) only thing certain on tenure is we are at the Ricoh for the next two and a half years. In that time CCFC have to make the decision to stay or go. If they stay imo they will have to commit to the stadium longer term unless they prove the alternative

d) the actual value of CCFC which ever way you look at it is £nil. The losses and debts more than cover any assets the club might be thought to have (Maddison included and I suspect figures of £10m are well wide on that one...... there are not many other assets in our squad)

e) any deal to buy CCFC will be a deal to take on the debts that SISU as owners want to remain in place. That might be all, none or anything in between. A lot of the debt is tied up in the preference shares that were issued - those alone are a big hurdle to overcome for any purchaser. educated opinion

f) my opinion is that SISU have deliberately created debt in order to make a sale difficult. That points to other objectives other than success on the pitch imo.

g) it is early days for things like TV revenues for rugby, that is just like it was for the Premier League now look at it. Look at how much more coverage the European games are getting this season for instance. Picking on one "fact" does not prove worth or value or size. Like it or not interest in top class Rugby is growing. Also the structure of finance is very different in Rugby to football that will keep losses down. Do you see them paying out massive transfer fees ?

h) Wasps physically paid 5.76m for ACL end of. The value was that in part because it included the £14m loan. They took over obligations that already existed in ACL and were included in the valuation of the shares. It never cost them £20m. They didn't increase debt or even pay off debt at that time.

I) management charges paid to investors or third parties/owners would need to be disclosed in the published accounts as connected transactions. The debt owed by SBS&L group to the owners Sconset hasn't changed since 2012

h) Wasps are not reliant on just the Rugby related income - that accounts for 1/3rd of the revenues Wasps holdings have. CCFC & Wasps account for around 1/3rd of the footfall at the stadium too. That insulates the rugby club to some degree from being dependent on crowd numbers. CCFC are entirely dependent on crowd numbers

I) CCFC is just a tool in another game away from football. The finances were/are messed up creating as much debt now as in 2008, when SISU came in. CCFC is now floating on its own income generated without further loans from the owners - opinion

J) they haven't fiddled the books ie nothing illegal- they have used the legal processes that were there for a plan to achieve a particular goal that to date has been a dismal failure

k) any deal to sell (and there isn't one imo) will leave a totally different structure and liability to interest etc. What blocks a deal is the debt burden and that's quite deliberate I think - opinion

l) no doubt there will be a few surprises to come in the 2015 accounts to be filed by the club by end of the month. - opinion

m) I cant find anywhere in the clubs accounts where it proves McGinnity in his tenure as Chairman dropped the group debts from £60m to £25m

n) what is going on with Wasps and ACL is not going to be achieved in 18months. It is a much longer term venture and always intended to be, so short term perceived gains by CCFC (eg crowds) are not very relevant to their overall strategy. Those running that operation are far from being anyone's fool and have been responsible for considerable success financially in other roles inside and outside of sport. - opinion

o) will they ever have to repay the bonds? I do not see why people are so certain they have to find £34m in 5 years time. There are other ways round that problem.

p) interest payments. Yes they have to pay interest on the bonds, but they no longer have to pay interest as a group on other loans. Not to mention part of the bond issue money was put on deposit to meet the first three interest payments

Are Wasps a bigger set up than CCFC ? some of this might be uncomfortable to read
In terms of present income yes - Wasps group has incomes probably 5 or 6 times greater than CCFC and most is not reliant on fans turning up to watch
In terms of overall finances - wasps have more assets and less liabilities than CCFC
In terms of crowds - presently CCFC edge that one.
In terms of TV money - who knows but how much is a L1 match worth? but Wasps receive more in central distributions than our total turnover
In terms of TV coverage - viewing figures might well be less for Wasps
In terms of current sporting potential - well CCFC are in a bad run and Wasps are hitting some form. Wasps in Europe/ top league ...... CCFC in L1 top five (third division) Potential for both to improve if backed financially - is that a problem or doubt for one both or neither?
In terms of security - Wasps own a stadium that isn't based on sporting success, CCFC own a two year lease extension and a training ground

Frankly I don't like much of that but CCFC, SISU and all the others involved had 8 years to have created the situation that CCFC now suffer. It didn't have to be that way and there were many opportunities for it not to be

Who is biggest is pointless to be honest - Wouldn't matter to me if CCFC played non league, I support CCFC not Wasps. Size is irrelevant

This thread proves exactly why I wouldn't want to see its like on the main CCFC forum. Both sides of the argument are as bad as each other - just my opinion

 

[italiahorse]

It will never be our home whilst Wasps are there. Those oversized Wasps signs show us quite categorically who are the main men.
When they fuck off somewhere for money then maybe it will be ours again.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm sorry you see it that way but it means you have a difficult few years ahead of you if you can't get through it.
I'm not happy that wasps own the Ricoh and we don't, but I have come to terms with the reality of it.

As suggested it may be helped through business interests and being able to afford to watch and 'enjoy' both.

Sisu have messed up and as OSB58 suggests above they have tied the club in a debt that may mean they are here for some time.

CCFC will need to work with Wasps and hopefully commit long term so we 'can' make it our home.
After all we have never owned it and at least are rent is reduced and we have access to some incomes.

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Most that don't like them don't have season tickets or merchandise. They are not making money off the back of them being here. They are not coming on to a CCFC forum gloating and trying to wind people up. You're the only one. Due to these reasons your arguments have no credibility. This thread had quitened down until your inflammatory comments. Therefore I would suggest you are being divisive.

 

[Captain Dart]

To summarize OSB ...

with apologies to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

 

[italiahorse]

Most that don't like them don't have season tickets or merchandise. They are not making money off the back of them being here. They are not coming on to a CCFC forum gloating and trying to wind people up. You're the only one. Due to these reasons your arguments have no credibility. This thread had quitened down until your inflammatory comments. Therefore I would suggest you are being divisive.

I'm not gloating I'm a CCFC season ticket holder of many (many) years. Why would I.
I'm just stating it as I see it. Unfortunately it's not liked by some as it hits a few nerves.

My logic is that at some point we will have to work with them so I'm just dispelling some myths.

 

[Nick]

I'm not gloating I'm a CCFC season ticket holder of many (many) years. Why would I.
I'm just stating it as I see it. Unfortunately it's not liked by some as it hits a few nerves.

My logic is that at some point we will have to work with them so I'm just dispelling some myths.

Which myths were they?

 

[Moff]

Which myths were they?

The ones he made up to prove his point?

 

[italiahorse]

Which myths were they?

New stadium myth and debt will not be a problem myth.
Also the one where Wasps will be going in the near future and we don't need to work with them.
Certainly the one that Sisu actually made a reasonable bid for the Ricoh.
Perhaps the one where the Ricoh is not our home because Wasps own it and not ACL.

I could go on without even mentioning the ones that Moff is on about.

 

[Nick]

New stadium myth and debt will not be a problem myth.
Also the one where Wasps will be going in the near future and we don't need to work with them.
Certainly the one that Sisu actually made a reasonable bid for the Ricoh.
Perhaps the one where the Ricoh is not our home because Wasps own it and not ACL.

I could go on without even mentioning the ones that Moff is on about.

New stadium myth and debt will not be a problem myth. - How many people believe the new stadium at this point in time?
Also the one where Wasps will be going in the near future and we don't need to work with them. - How many people think they will be going in the near future? It is quite obvious we need to work with them, they are our landlords. If there was a realistic option where we didn't have to? Damn right we shouldn't.
Certainly the one that Sisu actually made a reasonable bid for the Ricoh. - They did didn't they? It wasn't much less than what Wasps paid for 50%, but people went batshit mental saying it was an insult and they were trying to rip off the kids.
Perhaps the one where the Ricoh is not our home because Wasps own it and not ACL. - It isn't our home is it? We play there, but it isn't our home. Walk in from the Jimmy hill side to see it isn't our home. Wasps own it, they have every right to paint it black if they want to. Let's not start the bullshit about it though.

More bullshit.

 

[Moff]

Just to clear a few things & add the odd opinion (ie facts unless I say it is my opinion)

b) personal opinion but those waiting for Wasps to go bust I think are going to be waiting a very long time. CCFC do not have the resources to wait that out.

f) my opinion is that SISU have deliberately created debt in order to make a sale difficult. That points to other objectives other than success on the pitch imo.

g) it is early days for things like TV revenues for rugby, that is just like it was for the Premier League now look at it. Look at how much more coverage the European games are getting this season for instance. Picking on one "fact" does not prove worth or value or size. Like it or not interest in top class Rugby is growing. Also the structure of finance is very different in Rugby to football that will keep losses down. Do you see them paying out massive transfer fees ?

h) Wasps are not reliant on just the Rugby related income - that accounts for 1/3rd of the revenues Wasps holdings have. CCFC & Wasps account for around 1/3rd of the footfall at the stadium too. That insulates the rugby club to some degree from being dependent on crowd numbers. CCFC are entirely dependent on crowd numbers

o) will they ever have to repay the bonds? I do not see why people are so certain they have to find £34m in 5 years time. There are other ways round that problem.

p) interest payments. Yes they have to pay interest on the bonds, but they no longer have to pay interest as a group on other loans. Not to mention part of the bond issue money was put on deposit to meet the first three interest payments

First of all thanks for the time you took on the post, some very interesting and valuable information in there.

Just a few things I wanted to ask/raise about a couple of your points.

b) I think there are very few who want Wasps to go bust, but a lot who would prefer them to be back in their London heartlands, whether that is very unlikely or not. At the moment, not.

f) Why do you believe SISU have deliberately created debt in order to make a sale difficult? What could their other objectives be?

g) Yes European Rugby is on the TV more this season, but that is predominantly due to the new competition and the fact they negotiated a new deal. As a long term Rugby fan, I disgaree that revenues will grow massively for Rugby from things such as TV income. It is still a minority sport, apart from the internationals doesnt command a huge TV audience, and will never do so. The sport is played less at schools, except Public ones, and so todays youth what with all the other interests they have, apart from sport are barely interetesed in the game. It has never and will never have a huge uptake of new fans.

I dont disagree that it has grown in the past few years, but as a long standing Northampton Saints fan, with a knowledge of the game, I dont see it growing a greta deal more than it is now. Attendances will remain pretty similar, and have done so for many years with only slight increases, which eventually will plateau.

As for paying massive transfer fees, they cant as they havent the revenue, and are are also financially goverened. They dont and will never have the pull, appeal, nor spending power of football.

h) I fully agree that Wasps are not solely reliant on match day incomes, but surely they must have made projections as part of their buisness model? I personally think they will be disapointed with figures for this season, and can see, with or without sucess, crowds dwindling further. The City does not seem to have a huge appetite for top Class Rugby that the Council thought it had when selling to Wasps, and due to this I feel that Wasps will be disapointed on their returns on this front. It may not be a huge problem to their finances but it all makes a difference and will have to be covered elsewhere.

o) What do you see as the ways round paying the bonds that Wasps have? Surely the money has to come from somewhere, or just new debt?

p)Whilst it is true that Wasps put part of the bond issue money on deposit to meet the first three interest payments, they also paid a significant sum back to Mr Richardson, which i presume the club will have to find from somewhere?

As with your post, some of this is my own personal opinion, and I am just posting back as I am both interested in your views and also welcome them.

 

[oldskyblue58]

no problem with reasoned discussion like this Moff. Some seem to think I get everything right, I don't, and no reason why what I put should not be challenged just the same as anyone else

First of all thanks for the time you took on the post, some very interesting and valuable information in there.

Just a few things I wanted to ask/raise about a couple of your points.

b) I think there are very few who want Wasps to go bust, but a lot who would prefer them to be back in their London heartlands, whether that is very unlikely or not. At the moment, not. by the time they have moved all the players in to this area and then the training ground the possibility of them scuttling back to London becomes harder and harder financially. Just do not see it happening in the short or mid term and the longer they are here the harder it will be

f) Why do you believe SISU have deliberately created debt in order to make a sale difficult? What could their other objectives be? For me CCFC has always been a tool in this not the objective. Once Ranson and Onye quit messing about then there was only one objective and it wasn't promotion for the club. Had things gone well in 2008 & 2009 they would have flipped the club taken a profit and moved on. Even in 2012 I do not think they would have retained ownership of the stadium. I think they ring fenced the club with debt to keep prying hands off it, with that debt owed to the owners they, imo then went after the stadium. Thing about English law is that it is very often a clear process one step leads to another

g) Yes European Rugby is on the TV more this season, but that is predominantly due to the new competition and the fact they negotiated a new deal. As a long term Rugby fan, I disgaree that revenues will grow massively for Rugby from things such as TV income. It is still a minority sport, apart from the internationals doesnt command a huge TV audience, and will never do so. The sport is played less at schools, except Public ones, and so todays youth what with all the other interests they have, apart from sport are barely interetesed in the game. It has never and will never have a huge uptake of new fans. I don't largely disagree about minority sport and take up to be honest Thing is for Wasps those revenues don't have to grow massively, they can drive the other side of the business and just aim for breakeven on the rugby club. There are not many (any ?) rugby clubs with the same off field income potential. I don't think Wasps have to achieve massive take up of the sport in players or spectators to be successful financially. The more comfortable they are financially the less likely to fail or move

I dont disagree that it has grown in the past few years, but as a long standing Northampton Saints fan, with a knowledge of the game, I dont see it growing a greta deal more than it is now. Attendances will remain pretty similar, and have done so for many years with only slight increases, which eventually will plateau. Time will tell I guess but happy to bow to your closer involvement in rugby

As for paying massive transfer fees, they cant as they havent the revenue, and are are also financially goverened. They dont and will never have the pull, appeal, nor spending power of football. The point here wasn't that they should it was exactly what you have said. The influence of the Premier League driving transfer fees is what has driven many clubs in to massive debt and that filters through the leagues especially with the new rules on player valuations. That as it stands cant happen in rugby and therefore the financial requirements of success are not so heavy

h) I fully agree that Wasps are not solely reliant on match day incomes, but surely they must have made projections as part of their buisness model? I personally think they will be disapointed with figures for this season, and can see, with or without sucess, crowds dwindling further. The City does not seem to have a huge appetite for top Class Rugby that the Council thought it had when selling to Wasps, and due to this I feel that Wasps will be disapointed on their returns on this front. It may not be a huge problem to their finances but it all makes a difference and will have to be covered elsewhere. They may be disappointed they may dwindle, but its not a given. but its early days and I would think that their targets to hit are more likely over a 5 year period than 18months two years. As you say they have to make it up elsewhere to drive the event, conference and exhibition income. That takes a hit I would think that will be a bigger problem. My own guess is that the crowds will level out over a season at around 10k then it becomes a question of how that 10k is exploited financially something CCFC can't do

o) What do you see as the ways round paying the bonds that Wasps have? Surely the money has to come from somewhere, or just new debt? they could issue more bonds, they could float on the AIM or even get a single investor .... there are options but it will depend on the performance of the whole group

p)Whilst it is true that Wasps put part of the bond issue money on deposit to meet the first three interest payments, they also paid a significant sum back to Mr Richardson, which i presume the club will have to find from somewhere? paid him out of the bond issue money and I believe what is left owing to him is presently interest free..... he can waive his right to interest if he wants to. Also could he be seen as a buffer financially if things don't go quite to plan .... would he put more in again

As with your post, some of this is my own personal opinion, and I am just posting back as I am both interested in your views and also welcome them.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Think that Richardson was said to be owed in the region of £20million by Wasps after only one year ownership?

Seems unlikely that it could have been that amount on a middling Rugby club with a relatively low wage structure?

Would love to see how that figure was broken down.

 

[Moff]

no problem with reasoned discussion like this Moff. Some seem to think I get everything right, I don't, and no reason why what I put should not be challenged just the same as anyone else

Thanks OSB, for taking the time and effort to answer the questions and points I raised. Your answers are all interesting valid points., and I greatly respect your points.

The sad fact is whichever side of the fence you sit on, regarding any of the divisive issues surrounding the club, it is us the fans who always seem to be the losers.