Wasps breach agreement with bondholders (21 Viewers)
- Thread starter stupot07
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
If that was Tim Fisher.....
Nick
Administrator
It's getting laughable to be honest.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's unbelievable. He's had people giving him stick for immediately defending Wasps and rubbishing the idea they needed a valuation and yet when he has the chance to ask a direct question he bottles it. How hard is it just to say your prospectus says there must be a valuation by June, there is no indication this has happened, why not?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Can't see any serious shit hitting the fan till 2022 when the bonds have to be repaid.
If interest rates rise in the meantime Wasps will be in the do do's (as will bond holders who didn’t see it coming).
If they don't expand their portfolio of interests in the meantime Wasps will be in the do do's.
If they don't get a decent sponsorship deal for the Arena they will be in the do do's.
A number of risks but that's business for you, my gut feeling is that they will ride out the next few years and emerge OK, though still carrying significant debts and liabilities.
If interest rates rise in the meantime Wasps will be in the do do's (as will bond holders who didn’t see it coming).
If they don't expand their portfolio of interests in the meantime Wasps will be in the do do's.
If they don't get a decent sponsorship deal for the Arena they will be in the do do's.
A number of risks but that's business for you, my gut feeling is that they will ride out the next few years and emerge OK, though still carrying significant debts and liabilities.
Nick
Administrator
He could have just said can you explain this article and show him it. All this does is make it more obvious it hasn't been done
Otherwise they would say "ah, thats a misunderstanding, this is what the situation was" Everything is cleared up. Now the message is that "Wasps are perfect and everything is great"It is how it works, something gets dug out, the telegraph brush it over. I bet they will be dragging up an ex player as we speak to shout SISU SISU to ignore everything.
Job done, everybody forgets. It's getting more and more obvious now the more it goes on.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
...it would only end one way. Proved to be nonsense. As has repeatedly happened with FOI's.
Nick
Administrator
You just backed his point up.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The only difference is that it will eventually happen.
When TF says it, it never happens.
Big difference (unless you believe him of course ?)
Nick
Administrator
The valuation will eventually happen?
You would hope so, but that isn't the question.
The question was "did it happen".
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I was answering the Stadium Sponsorship query.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Wrong, the question you meant to ask is "was the promised valuation cancelled because it would have shown the terms of the bond were not being met".
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So every time TF has used the confidentiality line it hasn't been proved to be less than honest? Is that the point? There's absolutely no point saying "if that was TF..." TF has made a rod for his own back on this score. Why you would pretend he hasn't by saying "if that was TF..." is beyond me. Unless the point is that you believe everything that TF has said despite the FOI's proving otherwise. Is that what the point is and I missed it?
Nick
Administrator
No, the point is dig up stuff and follow stuff up about all of them...
Instead, it gets left. The same as the Council Leader and the "condition that it wont harm CCFC" stuff.
It's the tin foil hat stuff you go on about so much
I reckon they must set the Telegraph homepage just for me, it's as if only I can see it branded as Wasps.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
There is no point in me saying it, yet you still go out of your way to try and disprove my point with your usual long-winded drivel.
Move on, Toni. I am merely stating that the answer from Armstrong was Fisher-like, which it was. Some of the other comments were too.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Where's your adblocker, man!
Nick
Administrator
I gave him the day off. He got tired holding bits of card in front of my screen everytime I loaded a site.
Wasnt that held in reserve from the bond issue?
If so the bond holders have just paid themselves?
Or was there a valuation but it did not give the figure they wanted so it was never finalised?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Whilst I would like an explanation as to why the valuation we expected was not done there are things to consider as to why it might not be what many expect. The lease and its value are fundamental to the accounts and audit as are the terms and conditions of the bond
The auditors from a professional/technical angle would have had to assess the lease value, from various directions
- the risk it posed at the planning stage, which sets the level of work done - be hard to make a case that the lease and security of bond was low risk so would necessitate a greater level of investigation
- the understanding of the entity
- the public interest in the stadium
- the local and national government interest in the stadium
- the governing body financial requirements
- the compliance with regulation including security terms
- the assumptions underlying the valuation in 2015
- the valuation itself
- whether a new valuation is required
- the threat to going concern both in terms of payment and compliance
- the future plans of the business
- the ability to pay interest and the ability to repay
- the risk of the bonds being called in early
- their own compliance procedures
- the final risk analysis
- the audit team and then partner review and finalisation
Bottom line after all that the statutory auditor signed off the accounts with no qualification or emphasis of matter (pointing to explanations in accounts) or reservations on going concern. Hard to think after all the above that there was just a simple error and it wasn't looked at
Then the bond trustee has a duty to ensure the safety of the bondholders investment. This will include many of the points above but in particular whether the bond trustee is satisfied that the covenants have been met as expected. To do otherwise or to accept something that isn't leaves the bond trustees open to negligence claims should the bond fail. Again I do not find such omissions likely, possible yes but not very likely.
So at the moment whilst I was expecting a valuation at 30/06/2016, and I do question that, I have to accept that those charged with investigating the finances (auditors & bond trustees) are satisfied that there is no error or omission and that the value of the lease sufficiently underpins the bond issue and that the covenants have been met - that on the face of it no formal valuation was required 30/06/16. They are of course in a far more informed position than any of us. Unless there is evidence that the auditors & bondholders have not done their jobs properly - and I see none, I see only claims on internet / media.
Here is a thought, perhaps the bond trustee got one done, but it was addressed to the bond trustee so could not be formally disclosed in the Wasps accounts even if Wasps paid for it - it would however help allow the directors to make their assumption on value. Just a thought nothing more
The alternative is that there is collusion between Wasps directors, the auditors and the bond holder trustees that prejudices the rights of the bond holders - not something I give any credence to at all. Mistakes can happen of course - but have they in this case? nothing says there have been, the supposed breach is based on an interpretation of a paragraph it is most likely not the full story.
Just because Wasps choose not to explain further doesn't make them wrong. I do myself find it hard to square what was said in the prospectus with the 2016 accounts but perhaps the prospectus statement could be seen to be ambiguous. It may also be the case that the directors and auditors have been in correspondence with the bond trustees and have their permission or agreement not to value again a year later. Wasps have no duty to explain to us further no matter how much we question
People need to be careful in making statements like
"Wasps finally respond to our exclusive in a friendly paper & totally avoid Q&A on why they breached agreement on Ricoh valuation.."
Could be seen as damaging a business unless it is absolutely certain they did (and right now personally I am not certain), and damaging the reputation of the auditor and bond trustee ....... would also seem Wasps are not interested in talking to certain members of the media but put your own spin or PR on that bit
Could be simply put to bed with a clear statement couldn't it ?...................
The auditors from a professional/technical angle would have had to assess the lease value, from various directions
- the risk it posed at the planning stage, which sets the level of work done - be hard to make a case that the lease and security of bond was low risk so would necessitate a greater level of investigation
- the understanding of the entity
- the public interest in the stadium
- the local and national government interest in the stadium
- the governing body financial requirements
- the compliance with regulation including security terms
- the assumptions underlying the valuation in 2015
- the valuation itself
- whether a new valuation is required
- the threat to going concern both in terms of payment and compliance
- the future plans of the business
- the ability to pay interest and the ability to repay
- the risk of the bonds being called in early
- their own compliance procedures
- the final risk analysis
- the audit team and then partner review and finalisation
Bottom line after all that the statutory auditor signed off the accounts with no qualification or emphasis of matter (pointing to explanations in accounts) or reservations on going concern. Hard to think after all the above that there was just a simple error and it wasn't looked at
Then the bond trustee has a duty to ensure the safety of the bondholders investment. This will include many of the points above but in particular whether the bond trustee is satisfied that the covenants have been met as expected. To do otherwise or to accept something that isn't leaves the bond trustees open to negligence claims should the bond fail. Again I do not find such omissions likely, possible yes but not very likely.
So at the moment whilst I was expecting a valuation at 30/06/2016, and I do question that, I have to accept that those charged with investigating the finances (auditors & bond trustees) are satisfied that there is no error or omission and that the value of the lease sufficiently underpins the bond issue and that the covenants have been met - that on the face of it no formal valuation was required 30/06/16. They are of course in a far more informed position than any of us. Unless there is evidence that the auditors & bondholders have not done their jobs properly - and I see none, I see only claims on internet / media.
Here is a thought, perhaps the bond trustee got one done, but it was addressed to the bond trustee so could not be formally disclosed in the Wasps accounts even if Wasps paid for it - it would however help allow the directors to make their assumption on value. Just a thought nothing more
The alternative is that there is collusion between Wasps directors, the auditors and the bond holder trustees that prejudices the rights of the bond holders - not something I give any credence to at all. Mistakes can happen of course - but have they in this case? nothing says there have been, the supposed breach is based on an interpretation of a paragraph it is most likely not the full story.
Just because Wasps choose not to explain further doesn't make them wrong. I do myself find it hard to square what was said in the prospectus with the 2016 accounts but perhaps the prospectus statement could be seen to be ambiguous. It may also be the case that the directors and auditors have been in correspondence with the bond trustees and have their permission or agreement not to value again a year later. Wasps have no duty to explain to us further no matter how much we question
People need to be careful in making statements like
"Wasps finally respond to our exclusive in a friendly paper & totally avoid Q&A on why they breached agreement on Ricoh valuation.."
Could be seen as damaging a business unless it is absolutely certain they did (and right now personally I am not certain), and damaging the reputation of the auditor and bond trustee ....... would also seem Wasps are not interested in talking to certain members of the media but put your own spin or PR on that bit
Could be simply put to bed with a clear statement couldn't it ?...................
Last edited:
Moff
Well-Known Member
I guess after you saying it would happen imminently over a year and a half ago, and then keep repeating the same message, you give yourself the chance that one day you will be right. Just a question of which year, decade.....
Wait three more years before making the comparison...
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
that would be why I say said assess the value not value it.
Well they had the information and agreed that the value had not been impaired in their opinion.
Why one years losses, which were a £1m or so more than expected, would make such a material difference over a period of 12 months to a long term lease valued on the basis of projected long term income streams and turnover levels (rising at that ) I am not sure. It wasn't valued on net results
I am guessing you have some accountancy or audit background?
Well they had the information and agreed that the value had not been impaired in their opinion.
Why one years losses, which were a £1m or so more than expected, would make such a material difference over a period of 12 months to a long term lease valued on the basis of projected long term income streams and turnover levels (rising at that ) I am not sure. It wasn't valued on net results
I am guessing you have some accountancy or audit background?
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Indeed but to me the more the question is avoid the more it looks like theres something to hide. If, as soon as it came up, Wasps had said 'it's not due until a later date' or 'the bond trustee had one done and is happy with it but its confidential' then a lot of the questions go away. When they say nothing and the CT, despite being requested, refuse to ask the question, it can give the impression something is being hidden.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I would agree CD, I would think they would want the questions to go away quickly
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
It's not at all. Gilbert has demonstrated that he isn't actually a journalist - just a PR man.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No, the point is dig up stuff and follow stuff up about all of them...
Instead, it gets left. The same as the Council Leader and the "condition that it wont harm CCFC" stuff.
It's the tin foil hat stuff you go on about so much
It will only harm CCFC if CCFC wants it too.
There hardly getting into bed with Wasps to survive. Just maybe it suits there legal case to play dead.
I still say that CCFC could not afford to take over and run the Ricoh and as so the only deal to survive relies on a long term deal with Wasps.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.
I suspect someone's worried about his bonds
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.
I suspect someone's worried about his bonds
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
He also keeps saying the stadium sponsorship is sorted
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
..... and the reasoning behind the delays in achieving it !!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Which are fictional.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.
I suspect someone's worried about his bonds
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Can we take the risk ?
What's the plan ? Get rid of Wasps and then not buy the Ricoh because it's not viable with CCFC in L1 ?
Wasps say they want CCFC long term. Have CCFC said they want to stay long term ? (Discounting anybody who was moved on for saying it !! )
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
You'll have to take my word for it, particularly as your only evidence is wishful thinking ?