Ranjit Bhurpa
Well-Known Member
It's also amazing how some posters are all over this thread like a rash but can't be bothered to contribute to today's match thread.
Appeal granted (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter CJ_covblaze
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Do you know if the retail bond is index liked or is it fixed?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
In economic terms it is a Ponzi scheme. If you disagree with that, you don't understand what a Ponzi scheme is.
The FCA would not treat it as such, partly because financial regulations are so weak, and partly because the purpose of the funds was accurately disclosed to investors in the prospectus. This is not an FCA issue, it's more of an issue for the dimwits who purchased the Wasps bonds.
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
Do you mean the interest payments? My recollection is that the interest payments are fixed, subject to Wasps remaining in compliance with its loan covenants.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I didn't disagree and I said I'm no legal expert but as far as I'm aware Ponzi schemes are illegal. Although you now seem to be explaining why it isn't a Ponzi scheme. I'm guessing that the dimwits did due diligence before buying into the bonds, I'd imagine bonds always carry an element of risk and I'd guess that risk is probably reflected in the interest paid. It's a gamble. Bonds, stocks and shares always are. I guess there's a lot of dimwits out there though as it was over subscribed wasn't it. I wonder if SISU had a flutter? They seem to enjoy throwing money at lost causes.
Astute
Well-Known Member
No You don't get the point.
They have a legal right to extend a lease. There is a formula used so leaseholders can't get ripped off.
Maybe it doesn't go with your agenda.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree and never have. Wasps owed him 20m IIRC. It was the only way of getting any of it back.
Not looking out for their best interests is he. 10m at a high interest rate. I still look forward to see how they pay it off after paying millions in interest.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I was asleep. Woke up to hearing the third goal going in
Astute
Well-Known Member
It is fixed. And as they are only paying interest the amount owed stays the same.
This is why I think SISU are after taking us away from the Ricoh. The arena has more value with us there than not. If it is making a loss at the end of the loan they won't be able to pay off the loan with another loan. So where will the money come from? But the FL won't allow them to just take us elsewhere. So they start JR2 to try and make them pay another 30m. They stop talks. We become homeless. The FL are then left with the choice like before. Allow us to move or kill our club off. If they don't allow us to move they leave themselves open to legal action from SISU.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If they do take us away it certainly wouldn't be for footballing reasons, the benefit of the club or the fan base.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Most things paying over 2% these days carries a bit of risk. The bonds are paying a few times this amount. When the bonds mature they will have got back nearly half of their money. And the lease is held as security. There are a lot worse investments out there paying the same.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Only an idiot would say it is.
They could still end up with the arena cheap. Nobody knows. It will be very interesting when it is time to pay the bonds back.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Which probably means that we're stuck with SISU for another five years. Based on what they've achieved so far during their tenure that probably means we will be a well established non league team losing at home to our landlords. Nuneaton town, Sphinx, Leamington, Rugby Town, Coventry United. Delete as appropriate.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I did as you said.
Nobody knows what will happen. Not even SISU. But I can see them staying until they get money from somewhere. Why get rid of something that has lost you a lot of money if it isn't going to lose you any more when you have a chance of getting some back?
They can keep us going on tickover. 60% of ticket income on the squad. Keep the academy going and raise money from selling them as they come through. Hope for promotions. Maybe look at the FL for the next JR. Maybe do one on Wasps. And all this time hope they go tits up and get the arena cheaply.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that it's arguable that the legal right was given on the premise of a future lease extension, I.e. the council share in ACL was valued on the wrong basis.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Astute
Well-Known Member
The legal right was there whatever. But yes I agree that it was all sorted out before the deal was done.
The arena was devalued by us going to Northampton. It was losing money and not much chance of being turned around without a tenant. That was what it was valued on.
CCC got what they wanted. A bit of money back, the loan paid off, another sports club in the arena and the chance to put their middle finger up at SISU. Seems more important to them than helping our football club.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I never said we did. Any tenant can ask for an extension. But it does depend on the relationship you have built with your landlord on whether you are successful. A quote "SISU never put forward any viable plans for the Ricoh." Which raised concerns as to what they wanted it for? At best because SISU are legally separate from CCFC we would just been their tenants and wouldn't have accessed all the revenues anyway.
It is too early to say whether Wasps have a successful business model or not. Coventry City certainly have not got one, whereas SISU have a very good one.
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Its arguable that they couldn't due to the insistence on the part of the council that their share in ACL was sacrosanct. Though then again they probably didn't put forward anything viable anyway. It struggle d with gates of 20k and 1.3m in rent...
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
No way the football league put us out of business even though they have allowed our club to be all but destroyed already
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The club was destroyed when Highfield Road was sold imo. Without the means to pay for its own stadium the financial disasters were inevitable.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Well if wasps are losing money running the Ricoh with crowds double that of ours (free tickets taken into cnsideration), and CCC before them losing money, How are sisu supposed to make money out of it?
Would we need to get a tenant in?
Would we need to get a tenant in?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
What is clear is the whole thing is a mess from a CCFC supporters point of view. SISU have legally separated themselves from CCFC yet have kept the ultimate say in our destiny.
I think their medium to long term strategy is to see if Wasps prosper or fail and if they can make it awkward for them in meantime they will do.
I certainly don't see us rising like a Pheonix anytime soon. What I do hope for is that we can be competitive at this level and be a bit more entertaining. Where we will be playing is a worry. Hopefully Wasps will actually need us financially.
Malaka
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Personally I think if there are grounds for an appeal, an appeal should be heard...
Isn't that the whole point of having a legal process? Unlikely, but what if there were actually grounds for an appeal that saw it come out in favour of SISU? They'd have been right to pursue it then, wouldn't they?
So let it go through to the end... rather than whitewash over it all.
Isn't that the whole point of having a legal process? Unlikely, but what if there were actually grounds for an appeal that saw it come out in favour of SISU? They'd have been right to pursue it then, wouldn't they?
So let it go through to the end... rather than whitewash over it all.
CJ_covblaze
Well-Known Member
No need. They'll be taking us on a tour. Could have a season at each.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It may be but you have to question the legal system as its being used not for justice but deliberately for the length of time in court
I think you are looking at it from the point of view of concerned tax payers genuinely wanting to know if money has been wasted.
This has nothing to do with that and no citizens are following similar lines.
Joy said she wanted an unencumbered freehold otherwise she would involve CCC in litigation.
In addition sha calls her company SISU and has to live up to the name - which means in this context, seeing it through to the bitter end. Win or lose. Unfortunately crashing CCFC would be seen as collateral damage in the bigger picture.
Even if she wins for her Investors....
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Show me any evidence there are concerned taxpayers. They don't care.
hypothetical - was saying he was looking it at that way. And then I said there are no citizens actually doing that. You are sort of agreeing with me. I await my "like"...;-)
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I'm guessing here but I think ARVO is largely Joy Sepalla and her hubby who put money in to keep the other investors from pulling out and ruining her reputation.
She's now trying to turn a failed investment round (note I said investment not CCFC, doubt if she gives 2 hoots about the club all she wants is money).
Generally Midfield
Well-Known Member
Are you still with the Trust? What is their strategy? Have they planned for different possible scenario's?
Can't help but feel another move away from the Ricoh would be any thing other than a disaster in terms of crowds
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
If they were worthless surely they'd be sold off at less than cost price, but they are still trading 6% above that. How do you explain that?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Think Fishers stance was that the loan made to ACL was crippling the company so presumably the same would apply to the Wasps bond.
Presumably now the loan from the council has been repaid if Wasps were to hit trouble and default on the bonds that would be their problem and nothing to do with any future owner of ACL.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Not if it is like the last appeal.
Sounds like they have said they have experts which gives new evidence. Last time they said similar. Then they gave the same argument that was turned down originally. More like time wasting than new evidence.