WASPS Interim Accounts (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldfiver
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Interesting analysis of the spend at the Arena. Although not clear whether it is accounting for just the Wasps share of F&B income or the lot:
F&B Spend Per Head Rugby at year end 2015: £6.80
F&B Spend Her Head Football at year end 2015: £1.93 (even it it was only the Wasps share, it's considerably lower)
Naming rights at the Ricoh extended
Presumably Wasps Finance PLC is the vehicle through which the bonds were issued?
Property plan and equipment valued at £54m!
£38m of debt, the bond repayable in 2022 at a variable rate, not disclosed. £7.9m to Richardson at a rate 4% above the Barclays Base Rate, interested waived for the accounting period.
Operating loss for 2015, mention of non-recurrent costs contributing to this.
F&B Spend Per Head Rugby at year end 2015: £6.80
F&B Spend Her Head Football at year end 2015: £1.93 (even it it was only the Wasps share, it's considerably lower)
Naming rights at the Ricoh extended
Presumably Wasps Finance PLC is the vehicle through which the bonds were issued?
Property plan and equipment valued at £54m!
£38m of debt, the bond repayable in 2022 at a variable rate, not disclosed. £7.9m to Richardson at a rate 4% above the Barclays Base Rate, interested waived for the accounting period.
Operating loss for 2015, mention of non-recurrent costs contributing to this.
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
Would the property include their training facilities?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
For how long and how much?
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
I believe it was extended until a new sponsor could be found.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The difference between football and rugby is about the price of a pint at the Ricoh. Given that you can drink in your seat at the rugby and Wasps have the bars open, and entertainment provided, for hours before and after matches I'm surprised the difference isn't greater.
Covstu
Well-Known Member
whats the difference out of interest as the football beer prices are extortionate!
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
FYI CT article from last year 
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-accounts-reveal-63m-8720201
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-accounts-reveal-63m-8720201
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
All the information on various Wasps accounts are on the LSE website
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/...ny-news.html?fourWayKey=XS1221940510ZZGBPUKCP
Figures have to be produced every 6 months under terms of the bond and published within 4 months of the accounts date
Main points are as above. I would think given the increase in turnover there must be some disappointment that there is no profit shown. But not necessarily so it may well be what is planned at this stage. However the bond price indicates the market is happy with the news.
Very simplistic I know but double the turnovers and that gives the group around £30m income for the year. That's pretty healthy for a white elephant owned by a failing rugby team. The costs I would think will have included some one offs but not sure how much so a straight doubling probably doesn't work. Annual results I would expect to be better than last year but still showing a loss
Need to get past this lease "no way its worth that much" - professional valuers say it is and they are far better placed to put a value on it than anyone here. The increase is the capitalisation of the works done for the hotel & atrium.
They still haven't drawn down all the bond money but have repaid more the Richardson so reducing overall debt. Don't get hung up on the repayment of the bond either - repayment doesn't have to be in cash
I would think they (Wasps) would say all is at least on target. Unfortunately I think that's bad news for CCFC because if it continues Wasps get stronger financially and we still have no financial asset base to build from, not even a small one and have committed nothing to anything long term whatever the option
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/...ny-news.html?fourWayKey=XS1221940510ZZGBPUKCP
Figures have to be produced every 6 months under terms of the bond and published within 4 months of the accounts date
Main points are as above. I would think given the increase in turnover there must be some disappointment that there is no profit shown. But not necessarily so it may well be what is planned at this stage. However the bond price indicates the market is happy with the news.
Very simplistic I know but double the turnovers and that gives the group around £30m income for the year. That's pretty healthy for a white elephant owned by a failing rugby team. The costs I would think will have included some one offs but not sure how much so a straight doubling probably doesn't work. Annual results I would expect to be better than last year but still showing a loss
Need to get past this lease "no way its worth that much" - professional valuers say it is and they are far better placed to put a value on it than anyone here. The increase is the capitalisation of the works done for the hotel & atrium.
They still haven't drawn down all the bond money but have repaid more the Richardson so reducing overall debt. Don't get hung up on the repayment of the bond either - repayment doesn't have to be in cash
I would think they (Wasps) would say all is at least on target. Unfortunately I think that's bad news for CCFC because if it continues Wasps get stronger financially and we still have no financial asset base to build from, not even a small one and have committed nothing to anything long term whatever the option
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It states the bond is repayable by a lump sum in 2022. Would you mind explaining a bit further?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
well they could issue bond no 2 for example . or go for a full flotation of the shares and repay with the proceeds. it isn't necessarily about saving up the cash out of profits
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Ah, no different from what I understood anyway.
Interesting to read your insight OSB ... thanks
According to the CT its been extended for a fixed short term which has not been disclosed, its not for a rolling period.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I would hazard a guess that the short term period is tied to the presence of CCFC at the arena. They have just signed up for 2 more years.
Till there is a longer agreement with CCFC then it will be more difficult to attract sponsors for a longer period.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
article in CT is here http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/wasps-rfc-confirm-ricoh-arena-11022072
Apparently the f&B per head for football is before CCFC take their cut. 18 games so far for CCFC 231720 attendance total - total F&B before split between Wasps and CCFC is £456,488. If costs taken out then I would bet on CCFC share being far less than £200k
What this does give is an indication of F&B at any potential new stadium where CCFC would get 100% of the income but also 100% of the costs.
Wasps earnt 5.84 per head from 6 matches with attendances of 91986 = 537,198. Far fewer feet through the door but a much better return
Apparently the f&B per head for football is before CCFC take their cut. 18 games so far for CCFC 231720 attendance total - total F&B before split between Wasps and CCFC is £456,488. If costs taken out then I would bet on CCFC share being far less than £200k
What this does give is an indication of F&B at any potential new stadium where CCFC would get 100% of the income but also 100% of the costs.
Wasps earnt 5.84 per head from 6 matches with attendances of 91986 = 537,198. Far fewer feet through the door but a much better return
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
On a 10 year deal it would be nice to see who will be at the stadium during that period.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Does this mean Wasps are not going to be running at a loss for the foreseeable and people can forget about waiting till they break.
Can we get signed up long term now and for some kind of a partnership. Remove all this uncertainty from our football club? Maybe also get that breakeven point down to the 8000 fan mark?
Can we get signed up long term now and for some kind of a partnership. Remove all this uncertainty from our football club? Maybe also get that breakeven point down to the 8000 fan mark?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Does wasps include the pre/post match entertainment? Also football kiosks pretty much close after half time, so Wasps will have higher costs as staff will be working longer.
And also, the ACL QnA suggested that profit margin on f&b's was only 11%. So although revenues look good, actual useable revenues are poor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
Another guess from me would be that its been extended until JLR sort everything out and are ready to buy in to the sponsorship
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yet CCFC have no right to any of that sponsorship income.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes OSB, the margin on F&B isn't as good as you'd expect either, think the costs were in the region of £390k for a £456k return.
albatross
Well-Known Member
Even if CCFC's share of the £456k is much less that £200K it will probably still cover the rent of the stadium and some of the match day costs.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
From the Q&A
12: £100,000 has been publicised as the value of food and beverage income – is this 50% of the profits i.e. ACL’s half from the EIC joint venture?
ACL: In principle – we have all accepted that more work is needed on the detail of this, and it needs to be agreed with ACL’s contracted partner Compass, so it is not simply in ACL’s gift. Of course match-day income is also influenced by attendances, these we have seen drop from an average of 13,126 in 11/12 to a current year to date average of 9,259
Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903.
ACL would be willing to give CCFC full details of the F & B accounts and were prepared to go open book and even allow CCFC to use the revenue figures in the clubs FFP calculations
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...le?id=227:full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc
The profit margin is about 11%, so if it's £450k before the the 50:50 split, then that's £225k. There's only a 11% profit margin so after costs that equates to about £25k to the club.
In fact even though wasps customers spend more after costs it's only £60k profit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
12: £100,000 has been publicised as the value of food and beverage income – is this 50% of the profits i.e. ACL’s half from the EIC joint venture?
ACL: In principle – we have all accepted that more work is needed on the detail of this, and it needs to be agreed with ACL’s contracted partner Compass, so it is not simply in ACL’s gift. Of course match-day income is also influenced by attendances, these we have seen drop from an average of 13,126 in 11/12 to a current year to date average of 9,259
Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903.
ACL would be willing to give CCFC full details of the F & B accounts and were prepared to go open book and even allow CCFC to use the revenue figures in the clubs FFP calculations
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...le?id=227:full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc
The profit margin is about 11%, so if it's £450k before the the 50:50 split, then that's £225k. There's only a 11% profit margin so after costs that equates to about £25k to the club.
In fact even though wasps customers spend more after costs it's only £60k profit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
From the Q&A
12: £100,000 has been publicised as the value of food and beverage income – is this 50% of the profits i.e. ACL’s half from the EIC joint venture?
ACL: In principle – we have all accepted that more work is needed on the detail of this, and it needs to be agreed with ACL’s contracted partner Compass, so it is not simply in ACL’s gift. Of course match-day income is also influenced by attendances, these we have seen drop from an average of 13,126 in 11/12 to a current year to date average of 9,259
Match-day F&B Turnover in 11/12 season was £1,010,992, with Nett Profit of £119,903.
ACL would be willing to give CCFC full details of the F & B accounts and were prepared to go open book and even allow CCFC to use the revenue figures in the clubs FFP calculations
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...le?id=227:full-version-of-qaa-to-acl-and-ccfc
The profit margin is about 11%, so if it's £450k before the the 50:50 split, then that's £225k. There's only a 11% profit margin so after costs that equates to about £25k to the club.
In fact even though wasps customers spend more after costs it's only £60k profit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Sorry stupot but there is no point quoting the Trust Q&A's the whole basis of supply etc has changed since Wasps came in - those percentages no longer apply.
That said there is little in it for the club
Wasps in the interims quote
F&B income as 3.193m in total (including the matches both sports I assume)
F&B cost as 2.062m
but don't quantify the wages costs associated
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Yes because they didn't buy the Area lease & let somebody else gazump them. Another strategic error down to SISU.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Not really about the lease ownership, if CCFC have a material effect on the value of the sponsorship deal they should receive a cut of it. It doesn't have to be connected to ownership or otherwise of the property.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Your right . But it can also have a negative effect if there is a court battle or chance of relegation to L2.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Not sure how court battle is that negative on Ricoh. It puts their name in the papers more, and most people couldnt give a flying fig apart from us loacls.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Hmm.
What I'm taking from this is a company that despite being gifted a stadium isn't yet turning a profit, with an obligation to pay over £2.3 million in interest on a £35 million loan which will also need to be paid back in 2022. I'm not saying that Wasps will fail anytime soon - but as headline news that doesn't look overly healthy to me.
Profit margins look pretty low, and they've been heavily discounting a key part of the product too (tickets), which also isn't a great mix from what I can recall of my limited financial knowledge. Evidence doesn't suggest that they're gaining much traction in terms of increased attendances, in fact I think it's the opposite for most games.
I take OSB's very legitimate point that the market still considers the bonds to be worth around the original value, but I do see some smoke and mirrors in terms of the security for them (a stadium that they don't own the freehold on, which loses a lot of value if Wasps aren't there, which they won't be if they're going bust and the bonds can't be repaid!).
I'm not challenging OSB's analysis here by the way - it's as honest and detailed as ever, but I don't quite see it the same way.
Regardless, they're still a franchise, they still don't have Coventry in their name or their heritage, and they're still in the way of the football club getting what they need. Personally, as a CCFC/CRFC fan I can see no reason to support them.
What I'm taking from this is a company that despite being gifted a stadium isn't yet turning a profit, with an obligation to pay over £2.3 million in interest on a £35 million loan which will also need to be paid back in 2022. I'm not saying that Wasps will fail anytime soon - but as headline news that doesn't look overly healthy to me.
Profit margins look pretty low, and they've been heavily discounting a key part of the product too (tickets), which also isn't a great mix from what I can recall of my limited financial knowledge. Evidence doesn't suggest that they're gaining much traction in terms of increased attendances, in fact I think it's the opposite for most games.
I take OSB's very legitimate point that the market still considers the bonds to be worth around the original value, but I do see some smoke and mirrors in terms of the security for them (a stadium that they don't own the freehold on, which loses a lot of value if Wasps aren't there, which they won't be if they're going bust and the bonds can't be repaid!).
I'm not challenging OSB's analysis here by the way - it's as honest and detailed as ever, but I don't quite see it the same way.
Regardless, they're still a franchise, they still don't have Coventry in their name or their heritage, and they're still in the way of the football club getting what they need. Personally, as a CCFC/CRFC fan I can see no reason to support them.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
CCFC are in a much worse hole, their figures are substantially worse, compare them.
CCFC operating loss was £1.9M on an annual turnover of £4.7M, they owe £10.5M to ARVO.
Wasps operating lost was £0.2M on a 6 month turnover of £15.5M, they owe £30.7M to Wasps Finance.
Which company looks the most healthy?
PS I will never go to a Rugby match, I don't follow Rugby & never will. I prefer to watch paint dry.
duffer
Well-Known Member
All fair enough, but CCFC are 8th in the third division of football. Wasps are 4th/5th in the top division of Rugby. We've got plenty of room for improvement and the potential to one day access the richest league in the world. Where do Wasps go from here?
As for Rugby v Football, it's like Beatles v Stones - it's just a matter of taste. Go with what you like.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I suppose Wasps improvements will be a expanding fan base and developments at the Ricoh.
No doubt though that CCFC are a sleeping giant and the potential from where we are is huge.
It's just how we get there is the problem.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Regarding your last paragraph. I have no interest in Rugby and do not support Wasps.
However I can see the only sensible option for CCFC is to try and get the best partnership with them as we can possibly get that gives us the most access to revenues and more importantly long term stability.
There are some who refuse to accept this, purely based on their hate for Wasps. I couldnt give a stuff about them really.
I just see holding out till they break or building a new stadium as non options and we just tread in this abyss whilst blindly following this path.
Unfortunately even though it would be best for the football club I am unsure if it would be best for SISU as a business in terms of recouping its investment.
So hopefully the legal action somehow dies that and will allow decisions to me made purely on what is best for the long term future of the club.