Wasps downward spiral... (17 Viewers)

[clint van damme]

I am sure the people of Henley in Arden will be delighted if Wasps get bailed out as well.

What are the rules onstage aid now? I'd have thought the EU route for complaints is now closed.
If they gave them the money and dressed it up as covid related then surely the WMCA is going to be inundated with requests for hand outs from businesses all over the West Mids?

I think sisu can sit back and watch and it will still become a hot potato if wasps do get what they're after?

 

---

[MalcSB]

The lack of transparency, citing commercial sensitivity, for an application for public funds is unacceptable.

 

[oldskyblue58]

9


If the Bonds are not paid it all collapses because of guarantees etc.

It would be interesting to see who is raisng the new finance - WF or WASPs Holdings or ACL. But if the suggestion is the £13m is not for the Bond Holders - what is this for?

Is what is going on with ACL sub group about the bond debt though ? Or is it about other liabilities that run in to millions. Reduce those liabilities by losing those ACL companies and the whole group is more viable.

Bond holders are secured on the lease where ever it sits aren't they because of the individual charges on every company bar IEC. That probably gives time for some sort of reconstruction doesn't it ? Wasps repay bond but somehow reduce other present or future liabilities? Just thoughts I don't know enough to say it works or is legal or that is what is happening.

Also the Derek Richardson security charges are not in the ACL sub group so his debt is secured still. Wont lose anything if ACL sub group goes

Surely the group structure only needs two companies once bond is settled? One the trading and playing side the other for the lease.

There is a reason why in the year of refinancing they filed the wasps holdings consolidated accounts for 2021 which reflect all transactions of the whole group including ACL sub group but didn't file the individual subsidiary companies at the same time. That could be just process and economic changes now have affected the going concern. But it that's the case then the Auditors would have to consider withdrawing the group 2021 audit report. The assets in ACL are essential to the ability to trade for the rugby club and group. So It looks like a reconstruction plan of some kind to me and they still intend to repay the bond.

I would think the 13m is to do with the stadium but we will have wait see. I would guess that CCC have some liability if it relates to the original construction and predates wasps occupancy. Wasps own the lease not the structure or land. Hence the involvement.

But it is all guesswork

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

Is what is going on with ACL sub group about the bond debt though ? Or is it about other liabilities that run in to millions. Bond holders are secured on the lease where ever it sits aren't they because of the individual charges on every company bar IEC. That probably gives time for some sort of reconstruction doesn't it ? Wasps repay bond but somehow reduce other present or future liabilities? Just thoughts I don't know enough to say it works or is legal or that is what is happening.

Surely the group structure only needs two companies once bond is settled? One the trading and playing side the other for the lease.

I would think the 13m is to do with the stadium but we will have wait see. I would guess that CCC have some liability if it relates to the original construction and predates wasps occupancy. Wasps own the lease not the structure or land. Hence the involvement.

But it is all guesswork

How long do they have to show the year end accounts?

 

[oldskyblue58]

How long do they have to show the year end accounts?

So long as they keep companies house informed they can string it out for months. Look at Derby County the last accounts they filed was 2018!

There will be financial penalties but for multi million pound business its nothing much. Unlikely to affect ability of directors to stay in office

 

[Kneeza]

One Wasps shill railing against the overwhelming tide on the CWR Facebook page. I thought it was just a very small minority of Cov people opposed to them?

 

[chiefdave]

I've definitely given him a kicking over the years but fair play to him for all of this and the good grace he's taking it in (although I'll never forgive him for the book announcement hype )

For some unknown reason he's got me blocked on twitter. Him, Maton and Wasps, what a hat trick

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Is what is going on with ACL sub group about the bond debt though ? Or is it about other liabilities that run in to millions. Reduce those liabilities by losing those ACL companies and the whole group is more viable.

Bond holders are secured on the lease where ever it sits aren't they because of the individual charges on every company bar IEC. That probably gives time for some sort of reconstruction doesn't it ? Wasps repay bond but somehow reduce other present or future liabilities? Just thoughts I don't know enough to say it works or is legal or that is what is happening.

Also the Derek Richardson security charges are not in the ACL sub group so his debt is secured still. Wont lose anything if ACL sub group goes

Surely the group structure only needs two companies once bond is settled? One the trading and playing side the other for the lease.

There is a reason why in the year of refinancing they filed the wasps holdings consolidated accounts for 2021 which reflect all transactions of the whole group including ACL sub group but didn't file the individual subsidiary companies at the same time. That could be just process and economic changes now have affected the going concern. But it that's the case then the Auditors would have to consider withdrawing the group 2021 audit report. The assets in ACL are essential to the ability to trade for the rugby club and group. So It looks like a reconstruction plan of some kind to me and they still intend to repay the bond.

I would think the 13m is to do with the stadium but we will have wait see. I would guess that CCC have some liability if it relates to the original construction and predates wasps occupancy. Wasps own the lease not the structure or land. Hence the involvement.

But it is all guesswork

I don’t follow most of that but surely if the freeholder has work to do on the asset they should just do it

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

I don’t follow most of that but surely if the freeholder has work to do on the asset they should just do it

Don't think it works like that Pete, I asked that question and found the lease holder is liable for dilapidations

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

If I was a Wasps fan or ex Wasps fan based in the south east I'd be supporting Wasps amateurs or Ealing, there is no point making the journey up to Coventry, I'm sure a lot of the older Wasps fans have given up on them now anyway

 

[mr_monkey]

For some unknown reason he's got me blocked on twitter. Him, Maton and Wasps, what a hat trick

I've only got Turner and Bridge, don't feel so special now

 

[oldskyblue58]

I don’t follow most of that but surely if the freeholder has work to do on the asset they should just do it

Application probably needs involvement of both and then there are legal claims as to who is responsible for what. Freeholders cannot make major alterations without close involvement of a leaseholder

The rest

I don't think the non filing of the ACL accounts is about the bond. I think they are reorganising the group to lower overall liabilities and fully intend to repay all of the bond debt. It is just taking a little longer than expected. But its just a guess

It may be wmca support of stadium major repairs under pins the whole refinancing by giving the lease more value or simply maintain it. Those repairs are probably structural to the build and pre date wasps. If wmca agree the other lenders will sign off on the bond refinance that is arranged because the security given is more valuable. WMCA won't be paying any of the bond debt

 

[duffer]

Is what is going on with ACL sub group about the bond debt though ? Or is it about other liabilities that run in to millions. Reduce those liabilities by losing those ACL companies and the whole group is more viable.

Bond holders are secured on the lease where ever it sits aren't they because of the individual charges on every company bar IEC. That probably gives time for some sort of reconstruction doesn't it ? Wasps repay bond but somehow reduce other present or future liabilities? Just thoughts I don't know enough to say it works or is legal or that is what is happening.

Also the Derek Richardson security charges are not in the ACL sub group so his debt is secured still. Wont lose anything if ACL sub group goes

Surely the group structure only needs two companies once bond is settled? One the trading and playing side the other for the lease.

There is a reason why in the year of refinancing they filed the wasps holdings consolidated accounts for 2021 which reflect all transactions of the whole group including ACL sub group but didn't file the individual subsidiary companies at the same time. That could be just process and economic changes now have affected the going concern. But it that's the case then the Auditors would have to consider withdrawing the group 2021 audit report. The assets in ACL are essential to the ability to trade for the rugby club and group. So It looks like a reconstruction plan of some kind to me and they still intend to repay the bond.

I would think the 13m is to do with the stadium but we will have wait see. I would guess that CCC have some liability if it relates to the original construction and predates wasps occupancy. Wasps own the lease not the structure or land. Hence the involvement.

But it is all guesswork

Can't beat a bit of informed guesswork, OSB, it's all we can do at the moment.

So what do we know so far?

Wasps haven't managed to refinance the bond.

ACL haven't filed their accounts.

Wasps/ACL have applied for a loan (or grant) of 13m from WMCA.

I can't see these as being unrelated.

How about this for a theory:

Wasps can't refinance because of their previously poor financial performance, and because potential lenders don't see the value of the lease as sufficient security.

ACL can't persuade their auditors to sign off the accounts as a going concern until refinancing is in place.

One way to increase the value of the security, is to increase the value of the stadium. Another hotel, a shopping annexe, partial residential build, something like that perhaps?

One source of potential funding, WMCA. Other investors perhaps being understandably nervous given the facts above.

If I'm right, I still see some problems ahead.

The bond holders (or technically, their trustee) may not want to wait to see how it all pans out.

WMCA may see the loan as too risky, or outside the terms of their remit, or politically damaging.

Whatever happens, it's still kicking the bigger issue into the long grass - no one involved is turning a profit and their white knight isn't stepping in to bail them out this time.

 

[chiefdave]

I don’t follow most of that but surely if the freeholder has work to do on the asset they should just do it

You would expect who is responsible for maintenance to be explicitly defined. Its either Wasps or CCC and with such a long lease I'd expect it to be Wasps.

If its the responsibility of CCC then it wouldn't be the case they just fob Wasps off to the WMCA, that makes no sense.

Realistically what works at the stadium are required that would be eligible for public funding. They're already had money based on being a Commonwealth Games venue, I see on the Wasps forum they are now stating this was at the insistence of the Commonwealth Games Federation, would be interested to know how many other venues have benefitted from multi-million pound grants. As far as I'm aware there's the new athletics stadium and aquatic centre but everything else is using existing facilities and a quick google suggests none of them have received funding for improvements. Are we really supposed to believe it would have been impossible to host commonwealth events without a new frontage on the entrance?

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

Can't beat a bit of informed guesswork, OSB, it's all we can do at the moment.

So what do we know so far?

Wasps haven't managed to refinance the bond.

ACL haven't filed their accounts.

Wasps/ACL have applied for a loan (or grant) of 13m from WMCA.

I can't see these as being unrelated.

How about this for a theory:

Wasps can't refinance because of their previously poor financial performance, and because potential lenders don't see the value of the lease as sufficient security.

ACL can't persuade their auditors to sign off the accounts as a going concern until refinancing is in place.

One way to increase the value of the security, is to increase the value of the stadium. Another hotel, a shopping annexe, partial residential build, something like that perhaps?

One source of potential funding, WMCA. Other investors perhaps being understandably nervous given the facts above.

If I'm right, I still see some problems ahead.

The bond holders (or technically, their trustee) may not want to wait to see how it all pans out.

WMCA may see the loan as too risky, or outside the terms of their remit, or politically damaging.

Whatever happens, it's still kicking the bigger issue into the long grass - no one involved is turning a profit and their white knight isn't stepping in to bail them out this time.

The football club only has 9 years left on the lease, perhaps HSBC are not happy with that as we are the main draw and the stadium cannot operate with just 4000 fans once a month watching rugby, with CCFC having such a short lease it maybe a stumbling block for funding

 

[chiefdave]

because potential lenders don't see the value of the lease as sufficient security.

I've wondered about this for a long time. Its one thing to have a finger in the air valuation when it comes to reporting to bondholders, its a whole other thing to persuade the likes of HSBC to accept such a valuation as security.

Its not an unthinkable situation that the refinancing was on course until HSBC did due dillegance on the value of the security being offered. Does anyone realistically think if Wasps went tits up there would be a queue of people waiting to hand over £35m for the stadium?

Have they ended up in a situation where HSBC have said they will only lend a lower amount and are now scratching round for ways to make up the difference? Wouldn't any additional lender want security as well? And of course the more desperate you get the more likely it is that borrowing is costing you more.

My gut feeling is at best they are kicking the can down the road. There seems to be no plan to get them out of the financial mess they've got themselves into.

 

[FulltimeWum]

I've wondered about this for a long time. Its one thing to have a finger in the air valuation when it comes to reporting to bondholders, its a whole other thing to persuade the likes of HSBC to accept such a valuation as security.

Its not an unthinkable situation that the refinancing was on course until HSBC did due dillegance on the value of the security being offered. Does anyone realistically think if Wasps went tits up there would be a queue of people waiting to hand over £35m for the stadium?

Have they ended up in a situation where HSBC have said they will only lend a lower amount and are now scratching round for ways to make up the difference? Wouldn't any additional lender want security as well? And of course the more desperate you get the more likely it is that borrowing is costing you more.

My gut feeling is at best they are kicking the can down the road. There seems to be no plan to get them out of the financial mess they've got themselves into.

I seem to remember the stadium being valued at £54m in the booklet Wasps were banding around the other day.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

I seem to remember the stadium being valued at £54m in the booklet Wasps were banding around the other day.

They must have missed the dot between the 5 and the 4

 

[MalcSB]

You would expect who is responsible for maintenance to be explicitly defined. Its either Wasps or CCC and with such a long lease I'd expect it to be Wasps.

If its the responsibility of CCC then it wouldn't be the case they just fob Wasps off to the WMCA, that makes no sense.

Realistically what works at the stadium are required that would be eligible for public funding. They're already had money based on being a Commonwealth Games venue, I see on the Wasps forum they are now stating this was at the insistence of the Commonwealth Games Federation, would be interested to know how many other venues have benefitted from multi-million pound grants. As far as I'm aware there's the new athletics stadium and aquatic centre but everything else is using existing facilities and a quick google suggests none of them have received funding for improvements. Are we really supposed to believe it would have been impossible to host commonwealth events without a new frontage on the entrance?

Commercial leases I have been involved in have seen dilapidations being the responsibility of the lease holder. Wasps have chosen to spend money on, for example, the new training centre (to the detriment of the local community) rather than addressing either the dilapidations or bond repayment. Seeking public funding just seems wrong, bailing out a commercial entity which has got itself in trouble through its own decisions. However the submission is based, even if it is for stadium issues, every penny of public funds releases money to meet the bond repayment. If COVID is the basis of the submission, WMCA only need to look at our attendances to realise this is not the fundamental issue - unrealistic corporate management is. Richest rugby club n the world was the claim. Quite the reverse seems to be the case.

 

[oldfiver]

Application probably needs involvement of both and then there are legal claims as to who is responsible for what. Freeholders cannot make major alterations without close involvement of a leaseholder

The rest

I don't think the non filing of the ACL accounts is about the bond. I think they are reorganising the group to lower overall liabilities and fully intend to repay all of the bond debt. It is just taking a little longer than expected. But its just a guess

It may be wmca support of stadium major repairs under pins the whole refinancing by giving the lease more value or simply maintain it. Those repairs are probably structural to the build and pre date wasps. If wmca agree the other lenders will sign off on the bond refinance that is arranged because the security given is more valuable. WMCA won't be paying any of the bond debt

As the accounts should have been filed in March your observations imply the restructuring was in process then?

Why does that stop production of accounts to the previous June? Wouldn't this be a post balance sheet event?

WASPs Holdings group accounts were signed off early November 2021 but not the outlier companies - why not?

So many questions

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

There seems to be very little support for them locally on social media ..

Unsurprisingly the ones that jumped ship, or at the very least sympathised with Wasps because of 'big bad SISU' are now quietly slipping into the shadows and not defending them any more. Some people I can think of, of whom I had almost shouting matches with a few years back because they were originally CCFC supporters, are now fairly obviously blushing and walking away with their tales between their legs. It has gone very quiet indeed.

Embarrassing cowards.

 

[oldfiver]

Commercial leases I have been involved in have seen dilapidations being the responsibility of the lease holder. Wasps have chosen to spend money on, for example, the new training centre (to the detriment of the local community) rather than addressing either the dilapidations or bond repayment. Seeking public funding just seems wrong, bailing out a commercial entity which has got itself in trouble through its own decisions. However the submission is based, even if it is for stadium issues, every penny of public funds releases money to meet the bond repayment. If COVID is the basis of the submission, WMCA only need to look at our attendances to realise this is not the fundamental issue - unrealistic corporate management is. Richest rugby club n the world was the claim. Quite the reverse seems to be the case.

If you remove the sale of PRL shares, the income received from 2 franchise deals (still outstanding) and other funding plus what was left from the Bond Issue the resultant figure will not be a good basis for future income returns as they are unlikely to reoccur

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Unsurprisingly the ones that jumped ship, or at the very least sympathised with Wasps because of 'big bad SISU' are now quietly slipping into the shadows and not defending them any more. Some people I can think of, of whom I had almost shouting matches with a few years back because they were originally CCFC supporters, are now fairly obviously blushing and walking away with their tales between their legs. It has gone very quiet indeed.

Embarrassing cowards.

They do say ‘better the devil you know’ for a reason. Wasps are owned by a hedge fund willing to cynically relocate to a new city/market because there was an embattled city council and football team going at it.

The council thought they one upped the football club!

 

[oldskyblue58]

As the accounts should have been filed in March your observations imply the restructuring was in process then?

Why does that stop production of accounts to the previous June? Wouldn't this be a post balance sheet event?

WASPs Holdings group accounts were signed off early November 2021 but not the outlier companies - why not?

So many questions

Indeed

To answer yours

Don't know, but restructuring would take time and perhaps clearance. If I am correct and not saying I am, then quite possibly being planned well before 31/03

The wasps holdings ltd audit report says the Auditors have audited the company AND its subsidiaries. You couldnt file the audited group accounts without doing the audit work on the subsidiaries. If the figures are provisional for subsidiaries then the auditors and group accounts would have to state that surely. So suggests they have chosen not to file the acl sub group financials doesn't it? It's not to keep the financial performance of the subsidiaries secret because in general terms the information for subsidiaries is in the group accounts and public already.

What we know is financials have not been filed at companies house. Not that the financials were not prepared or audited the previous answer suggests they have been. As to why, I have suggested a reason and actions we have all seen before, - look at what has or has not been done. There maybe other reasons of course

But it's all just guesswork, am sure we will find out soon what is going on.

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

Indeed

To answer yours

Don't know, but restructuring would take time and perhaps clearance. If I am correct and not saying I am, then quite possibly being planned well before 31/03

The wasps holdings ltd audit report says the Auditors have audited the company AND its subsidiaries. You couldnt file the audited group accounts without doing the audit work on the subsidiaries. If the figures are provisional for subsidiaries then the auditors and group accounts would have to state that surely. So suggests they have chosen not to file the acl sub group financials doesn't it.

What we know is financials have not been filed at companies house. Not that the financials were not prepared or audited indeed the previous answer suggests they have been. As to why, I have suggested a reason and actions we have all seen before, also previously that there may be going concern issues. There maybe other reasons of course

But it's all just guesswork, am sure we will find out soon what is going on.

Wasps very quiet on this though, if it was a matter of restructuring wouldn't they just come and out and say so, they are just silent on everything like Sisu were

 

[oldskyblue58]

Think you have answered your own question wasps or sisu ...... not so different to each other

 

[oldfiver]

Indeed

To answer yours

Don't know, but restructuring would take time and perhaps clearance. If I am correct and not saying I am, then quite possibly being planned well before 31/03

The wasps holdings ltd audit report says the Auditors have audited the company AND its subsidiaries. You couldnt file the audited group accounts without doing the audit work on the subsidiaries. If the figures are provisional for subsidiaries then the auditors and group accounts would have to state that surely. So suggests they have chosen not to file the acl sub group financials doesn't it? It's not to keep the financial performance of the subsidiaries secret because in general terms the information for subsidiaries is in the group accounts and public already.

What we know is financials have not been filed at companies house. Not that the financials were not prepared or audited the previous answer suggests they have been. As to why, I have suggested a reason and actions we have all seen before, - look at what has or has not been done. There maybe other reasons of course

But it's all just guesswork, am sure we will find out soon what is going on.

Understood bur it would appear a decision was made in November 2021 not to file along with the main businesses. 8 months?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Politics midlands just talking about should public money bail out wasps rugby wow

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Mark Pawsey and Zarah Sultana and Simon Gilbert on the show

Oops she referred to the Ricoh Arena but was put right

 

[shepardo01]

Politics midlands just talking about should public money bail out wasps rugby wow

Currently on twitter - EVERY reply from Simon and BBC Midlands tweets have said NO.... even including non CCFC fans!

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

Just caught the end of it, what was said earlier?

 

[clint van damme]

Currently on twitter - EVERY reply from Simon and BBC Midlands tweets have said NO.... even including non CCFC fans!

They'll get it, but it won't come from the WMCA, it will come from CCC.

 

[shepardo01]

Just caught the end of it, what was said earlier?

Think that was pretty much it!
Interestingly, Zarah Sultana and Mark Pawsey (who is a big Rugby fan- stating this too) were for it if it meant keeping the arena functioning. (Not that it wouldn't function if the cash wasn't given!!!)

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

They'll get it, but it won't come from the WMCA, it will come from CCC.

Hopefully not, a lot of channels to go through, we still don't know what it's for yet either

 

[clint van damme]

Hopefully not, a lot of channels to go through, we still don't know what it's for yet either

Having looked at the responses to this story on social media one thing we can say for certain is that rugby supporters are, by and large, absolute wankers!