Wasps downward spiral... (30 Viewers)

CCFC88

Well-Known Member
No it’s as I understand what you get if you sell - I don’t understand why people are bailing at that price as I assume a payment is due in May
Could just be one person in a bad situation and needing to sell. Was surprised nobody bought to be honest.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I know. Pathetic eh? CRFC did exactly the same (why waste it?), but no hulabaloo like that. Sad fcks.
Pretty much every club is doing it.

Did notice in the video Dave Busst posted that he said they deliver to people in need every week and are still doing that while things are in short supply.
 

MusicDating

Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
Premiership clubs are preparing to ask players to take a 25 per cent paycut because of the financial
effects of the coronavirus outbreak, Telegraph Sport has learned.

Both Gloucester and Sale Sharks have called staff meetings for Friday in which they will outline the radical measures and it is believed up to seven other clubs, including Harlequins, Leicester and Wasps, are prepared to follow suit. Docking any wages would constitute a breach of contract and so players would have to agree to the proposal.

It is understood the clubs will argue that if they do not enact radical measures then they may struggle to stay afloat. At present, the next four rounds of league matches have been suspended, although the chances of the Premiership resuming as scheduled on April 24 appear increasingly remote.

Premiership clubs can ill afford to lose many further matches. Lance Bradley, the Gloucester chief executive who held a meeting with the senior playing group yesterday, last week told Telegraph Sport that matchday revenues make up 25-30 per cent of the club’s income. Bradley also said the prospect of cancellations or behind-closed-doors games would have a “dramatic impact on our finances.”

More bluntly a Gloucester playing source was told with no revenue coming in “they are going to be f-----d pretty quickly”. That situation is replicated throughout the league, which lost a collective £50million in the last financial year. Telegraph Sport also understands that clubs’ central funding from Premiership Funding has been cut by a quarter this week, which may reflect the demand for players to have their wages docked by 25%.

However, many players are asking what happened to the £13.5 million each club received from CVC’s takeover of Premiership Rugby last year. An emergency call of the Rugby Players’ Association’s players board was held on Thursday. The players’ union will hold further talks today as further detail of the clubs’ demands comes to light.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
If it comes to it, paying the bond interest will be the biggest priority for Wasps over paying players I think. That all said, not even sure missing a few games matters that much for them at the minute as I can't see any of the home games being profitable.
 

CCFC54321

Well-Known Member
Let’s be brutally honest here it’s only a matter of time before they go under. It’s on life support and the only people I’ll feel sorry is the ones out of work. If I was working for wasps I’d have tried to get out of the place this year but with what’s happening in the world it’s almost impossible.

I know someone in a corporate role in sport looking for another role and he said he wouldn’t touch wasps as it’s a basket case and will be out of work sooner rather than later. Not a place to go for a long term career!
 

Halftime Orange

Well-Known Member
It is a waiting game now.
Wasps are going tits up for certain so I'm assuming the Ricoh will either fall into the hands of administrators or go back to the original owners and the deal called off?
Joy and Timmy would rather it go into admin I'm guessing and try and pick it up on the cheap than deal with the council again.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It is a waiting game now.
Wasps are going tits up for certain so I'm assuming the Ricoh will either fall into the hands of administrators or go back to the original owners and the deal called off?
Joy and Timmy would rather it go into admin I'm guessing and try and pick it up on the cheap than deal with the council again.

The lease reverts back to the council
 
I don’t get how they managed to raise £35m finance on an asset that reverts to someone else when in default.

The bond issue was secured against ACL2006 (basically the Ricoh), that was what made it attractive for investors (that and the 6.5% payment every year), as it minimised risk. Only the 250 year head lease is forfeited. ACL's lease would revert back to the original remaining 38 year lease, in my interpretation of the prospectus. However, that isn't automatic and the administrator has the power to stop this happening as their job is to get the best return for the creditors (clearly, an asset with a 250 year lease is worth a lot more than if it has a 38 year lease). Even if CCC claimed the forfeiture of the head lease, which they can do if ACL becomes insolvent (and before administration), this can still be challenged in court by ACL and the bondholders. In any case, with a 250 year or 38 year lease, ACL will pretty much be up for grabs to the highest bidder if the administrators are called in.

Again, this is my interpretation of the info in the prospectus, others may see it differently.


Prospectus.png
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
The bond issue was secured against ACL2006 (basically the Ricoh), that was what made it attractive for investors (that and the 6.5% payment every year), as it minimised risk. Only the 250 year head lease is forfeited. ACL's lease would revert back to the original remaining 38 year lease, in my interpretation of the prospectus. However, that isn't automatic and the administrator has the power to stop this happening as their job is to get the best return for the creditors (clearly, an asset with a 250 year lease is worth a lot more than if it has a 38 year lease). Even if CCC claimed the forfeiture of the head lease, which they can do if ACL becomes insolvent (and before administration), this can still be challenged in court by ACL and the bondholders. In any case, with a 250 year or 38 year lease, ACL will pretty much be up for grabs to the highest bidder if the administrators are called in.

Again, this is my interpretation of the info in the prospectus, others may see it differently.


View attachment 14499
Thanks, nice round up. If thats the case Sisu can just grab that 244 year lease from the administrators then.
 

Nick

Administrator
I think there might have been a Hoffman consortium who put a bid in at that time.

But it all sounds too much like things are going in our favour. If I've learnt anything from the last 10+ years it's that it'll soon turn to shit!
No it was ACL / Haskell
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top