Wasps deal will be externally scrutinised (9 Viewers)

[lordsummerisle]

Is that Wasps or us?

 

---

[tisza]

Is that Wasps or us?

Haven't the council said Wasps presented various plans including some with no football income? What exactly is the football club worth to ACL now? Rent of 100k + some matchday income. Hardly huge amounts.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Haven't the council said Wasps presented various plans including some with no football income? What exactly is the football club worth to ACL now? Rent of 100k + some matchday income. Hardly huge amounts.

Probably a bit more than Wasps are worth to ACL to be honest in the long term.

 

[Godiva]

Haven't the council said Wasps presented various plans including some with no football income? What exactly is the football club worth to ACL now? Rent of 100k + some matchday income. Hardly huge amounts.

From another thread:

Rent £100,000 (this offsets or contributes to the stadium bowl up keep)
F&B £8400 x21 x 90% = £158760 (if CCFC get 10% of turnover then that figure is 141k, but what if TF was wrong and it was more like 15% margin? )
Car parking £5 x 21 x 1500 = 157500
there isn't much else they earn from CCFC

Value of CCFC to ACL turnover 845k and to profits this financial year 416k. (all guess work of course). The point I am making is yes there might well be profits from CCFC but not very big ones and that puts CCFC at risk if the crowds reduce further and further. Because you get to a minimum staffing for the stadium for example the costs do not necessarily reduce at the same rate. Wasps might think they are losing not gaining by the deal

So in a 'normal season' some £1m in turnover and half in profit.
I would say that is a 'conservative' guesstimate.

And as Wasps and ACL seem to be struggling ANY penny we contribute counts.

 

[dongonzalos]

I think a problem with this topic is too many people want a binary choice, either SISU bad or CCC bad. Lots of lip service is paid to 'blame on both sides' but that doesn't really come through in the discussion. Add in that many people seem to want a simple answer, the proverbial 'smoking gun' that can be the answer to everything either through it's existence and lack of it. The situation, from both sides, is a lot more nuanced than that hence when people dig their heels in we just end up going round in circles.

In my opinion there is enough doubt surrounding the council to warrant investigation. This is not to say that the sale is illegal. I could give my house away for nothing, wouldn't be illegal but people would also question my judgement, even more so if the house was paid for with other peoples money, to make a not particularly brilliant analogy. The questions that I would like answer are more around the process of the sale and misleading information that was given.

For example, and this is just off the top of my head, Lucas' claim that ACL was profitable whilst we were in Sixfields. This has now been shown to be false and even admitted to by Lucas but she blamed council officers, presumably Reeves and West, for not giving her the correct information. Were they deliberatly giving false information, if so for who's benefit? If it was a mistake has other information been checked since to locate any other similar instances? Were any decisions, either granting the loan or authorising the sale, both voted for by councillors, made on this basis of this incorrect information? Things like that, none of that would make the sale illegal in any way but, depending on the answers, could leave some big questions for the council to answer. And to me the single most important question, was the same deal offered to us?

It's similar to the situation when we were put into admin, most people were of the belief that while SISU were operating on the edge of legality they were being careful to ensure their actions were legal. Didn't mean that we wouldn't have wanted a thorough investigation into why and when assets were moved around and what exactly had gone on.

Instead all we got was a tick box exercise by Appleton and it sounds like this will be very similar.

Your single most important question is a bit pointless though. Tim Fisher has already said the club could not do the wasps deal.

 

[dongonzalos]

From another thread:



So in a 'normal season' some £1m in turnover and half in profit.
I would say that is a 'conservative' guesstimate.

And as Wasps and ACL seem to be struggling ANY penny we contribute counts.

ACL were struggling without a tenant in the ground. I guess we don't really know if they are struggling now.
Wasps were struggling at Adams Park again we are unsure now.
However the last bit is the bit that worries me.
If Wasps can get by with or without our contributions. We may end up waiting a few years doing nothing but trying to break even whilst we wait to see if wasps can survive

 

[chiefdave]

Your single most important question is a bit pointless though. Tim Fisher has already said the club could not do the wasps deal.

That again raises the issue that people will believe Fisher when it suits. In my opinion there is no way Fisher would admit he would have taken that deal after the fact.

Would SISU have turned it down, maybe, we don't know. But for me there should have been an open and transparent sale process where everyone knew what was available and anyone could make bids - to give an example similar to Birmingham Council's sale of the NEC. Had that happened we could have all concentrated our efforts on getting SISU to make the bid.

 

[Godiva]

If Wasps can get by with or without our contributions. We may end up waiting a few years doing nothing but trying to break even whilst we wait to see if wasps can survive

Yes, this is very true!

 

[tisza]

ACL were struggling without a tenant in the ground. I guess we don't really know if they are struggling now.
Wasps were struggling at Adams Park again we are unsure now.
However the last bit is the bit that worries me.
If Wasps can get by with or without our contributions. We may end up waiting a few years doing nothing but trying to break even whilst we wait to see if wasps can survive

ironicallly we are providing Wasps with a safety net for the next 3 years whilst they develop the business.
The misquotes about Wasps going bust didn't help matters.
What Wasps have done is move from a situation as a tenant similar to ours into a situation where they can access greater revenues.
The deal breaker for Wasps is their new TV deals which are going to improve their situation whilst still being helped by a reasonable salary cap.

 

[The Gentleman]

That again raises the issue that people will believe Fisher when it suits. In my opinion there is no way Fisher would admit he would have taken that deal after the fact.

Would SISU have turned it down, maybe, we don't know. But for me there should have been an open and transparent sale process where everyone knew what was available and anyone could make bids - to give an example similar to Birmingham Council's sale of the NEC. Had that happened we could have all concentrated our efforts on getting SISU to make the bid.

Whether Fisher was lying or not and to be honest I couldn't give a shit because I take no notice of what comes out of that man's mouth, It's not that I think he's a liar or not, I think he is a piece of shit.

But you keep bringing up that line about people believing Fisher when it suits, when surely rather than look at whether he is lying, just look at history. They had 7 years to do a deal, 7 years to give us all what we wanted, 7 years to give the football club a sound financial footing, 7 years to get things right, 7 years to business in the right way and 7 years of not trying to sue the arse off people that didn't toe their line. History to me proves what that man is and an independent judge saw through it and said what they were trying to get the Ricoh for.

Lastly, people on here are wondering when CCC started talking to Wasps about the Ricoh, but I also wonder whether Sisu/Otium knew something about this sooner than they are letting on. Similar people hedge funds and maybe if Sisu did hear about this before they are letting on then why couldn't they have got a deal together sooner rather than be forced into a hollow offer to try and please the fans?

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

Can we put all of these Wasps deal discussions on the Wasps forum rather than on CCFC chat?

 

[chiefdave]

But you keep bringing up that line about people believing Fisher when it suits, when surely rather than look at whether he is lying, just look at history.

You're missing my point. For me an inquiry into how CCC have sold ACL and potentially misled the public is separate to what SISU have or haven't done. In an ideal world there would also be an inquiry into SISU but they aren't a publicly accountable body.

The point I'm making is, to me at least, whether ACL was offered to the club on the same terms as it was eventually sold to Wasps on is very important. Some are saying that question doesn't' need to be asked as Fisher has said they wouldn't buy it anyway. That's why I am saying people believe Fisher when it suits. To a certain extent it doesn't matter if they would or wouldn't have purchased ACL on that basis, if CCC had made that offer and it been rejected then the blame would lie totally with SISU, but it appears that offer was never made and I feel that is very much a black mark against CCC.

 

[oldskyblue58]

That again raises the issue that people will believe Fisher when it suits. In my opinion there is no way Fisher would admit he would have taken that deal after the fact.

Would SISU have turned it down, maybe, we don't know. But for me there should have been an open and transparent sale process where everyone knew what was available and anyone could make bids - to give an example similar to Birmingham Council's sale of the NEC. Had that happened we could have all concentrated our efforts on getting SISU to make the bid.

For me it is not a matter of disbelieving everything he says, it is listening to it and then matching to what we do know.

I think that a deal in the terms that were offered to Wasps was undoable for CCFC/SISU. Fisher was probably correct that such a deal wouldn't be good for CCFC because they could not afford it. For instance it would mean a cashflow payment of 1.6m pa for 20 years just to pay the CCC loan to ACL. I do not think that the way CCFC is now that a combined CCFC/ACL group could do that especially if independent of the owners. Not to mention the additional borrowing and interest to pay the 5.54m purchase fee. The spin he put on it was to imply that the deal could see Wasps go bust (yes it may have been about a partnership) but the further implication is that ACL is not viable, to be honest he is hardly going to say CCFC or SISU cant afford it though is he. A feature of this saga is that it is always someone elses fault as far as the major players are concerned (CCC/SISU)

In a perfect world yes the deal would have been totally transparent. But are CCC required to put it out for tender legally, are they duty bound to offer a deal of any kind to anyone? Are they legally required to offer it to CCFC? Because we are talking about compliance with the law really aren't we?

Morally the whole situation feels very wrong I agree but to get an inquiry is going to need some evidence of some kind that CCC powers/regulation or related law was broken or abused - is there any? Seem to remember there were secret meetings going on between CCC & SISU that the Charity were not involved in seems it isn't a new occurrence.

But wasn't the whole dispute at least in part about getting CCFC to bid ? to be involved not an adversary?

An inquiry needs to be specific. So what are the specific questions that need to be asked? I know you have listed some before as has duffer

 

[Godiva]

For me it is not a matter of disbelieving everything he says, it is listening to it and then matching to what we do know.

I think that a deal in the terms that were offered to Wasps was undoable for CCFC/SISU. Fisher was probably correct that such a deal wouldn't be good for CCFC because they could not afford it. For instance it would mean a cashflow payment of 1.6m pa for 20 years just to pay the CCC loan to ACL. I do not think that the way CCFC is now that a combined CCFC/ACL group could do that especially if independent of the owners. Not to mention the additional borrowing and interest to pay the 5.54m purchase fee. The spin he put on it was to imply that the deal could see Wasps go bust (yes it may have been about a partnership) but the further implication is that ACL is not viable, to be honest he is hardly going to say CCFC or SISU cant afford it though is he. A feature of this saga is that it is always someone elses fault as far as the major players are concerned (CCC/SISU)

In a perfect world yes the deal would have been totally transparent. But are CCC required to put it out for tender legally, are they duty bound to offer a deal of any kind to anyone? Are they legally required to offer it to CCFC? Because we are talking about compliance with the law really aren't we?

Morally the whole situation feels very wrong I agree but to get an inquiry is going to need some evidence of some kind that CCC powers/regulation or related law was broken - is there any? Seem to remember there were secret meetings going on between CCC & SISU that the Charity were not involved in seems it isn't a new occurrence.

But wasn't the whole dispute at least in part about getting CCFC to bid rather than sue? to be involved not an adversary?

An inquiry needs to be specific. So what are the specific questions that need to be asked? I know you have listed some before as has duffer

It's not about legality - it's about the political process.
I am certain the auditors would find any illegal actions involving contracts and lease agreements - but there won't be any.
The political process is not something auditors will get into. It's not their job.

An enquiry or investigation would seek to uncover what information was given to the politicians who made the decision.

 

[covcity4life]

For me it is not a matter of disbelieving everything he says, it is listening to it and then matching to what we do know.

I think that a deal in the terms that were offered to Wasps was undoable for CCFC/SISU. Fisher was probably correct that such a deal wouldn't be good for CCFC because they could not afford it. For instance it would mean a cashflow payment of 1.6m pa for 20 years just to pay the CCC loan to ACL. I do not think that the way CCFC is now that a combined CCFC/ACL group could do that especially if independent of the owners. Not to mention the additional borrowing and interest to pay the 5.54m purchase fee. The spin he put on it was to imply that the deal could see Wasps go bust (yes it may have been about a partnership) but the further implication is that ACL is not viable, to be honest he is hardly going to say CCFC or SISU cant afford it though is he. A feature of this saga is that it is always someone elses fault as far as the major players are concerned (CCC/SISU)

In a perfect world yes the deal would have been totally transparent. But are CCC required to put it out for tender legally, are they duty bound to offer a deal of any kind to anyone? Are they legally required to offer it to CCFC? Because we are talking about compliance with the law really aren't we?

Morally the whole situation feels very wrong I agree but to get an inquiry is going to need some evidence of some kind that CCC powers/regulation or related law was broken or abused - is there any? Seem to remember there were secret meetings going on between CCC & SISU that the Charity were not involved in seems it isn't a new occurrence.

But wasn't the whole dispute at least in part about getting CCFC to bid ? to be involved not an adversary?

An inquiry needs to be specific. So what are the specific questions that need to be asked? I know you have listed some before as has duffer

have you ever posted about football?

 

[Godiva]

have you ever posted about football?

TBF - ha has. A lot in fact.
But due to his profession we rely on his views. They are rarely the same as mine, but I value and respect his expertise and so should we all.

 

[Noggin]

have you ever posted about football?

Have you ever posted anything worthwhile? He's one of the most informative and knowledgeable people on the site.

 

[Grendel]

Have you ever posted anything worthwhile? He's one of the most informative and knowledgeable people on the site.

Other than when he comments on the shareholder value and purchase price of ACL.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I think the quote was primarily aimed at a Wasps/CCFC partnership NW.

Ta.

 

[Intheknow]

Final thought about the Wasps financial plans. Would you base your financial plans and future on ground sharing with a delinquent tenant with poor financial & legal history, that is descending and massively over burdened by debt and financial charges - I know I wouldnt

Especially when said tenant's rent deal is so low and therefore immaterial in the scheme of things.

 

[Como]

£100k less expenses, difficult to imagine it being crucial.

 

[Godiva]

Especially when said tenant's rent deal is so low and therefore immaterial in the scheme of things.

£100k less expenses, difficult to imagine it being crucial.

Read post #109 in this thread.
According to OSB ACL will increase turnover by some £800t and profit some £400t this season. More in a full season - even more if we get some nice cup games.
The club's contribution is not insignificant.

 

[wingy]

Read post #109 in this thread.
According to OSB ACL will increase turnover by some £800t and profit some £400t this season. More in a full season - even more if we get some nice cup games.
The club's contribution is not insignificant.

Yet we've been advised f+b turnover of £1M only ever generated profit of £100K previously

 

[Intheknow]

Read post #109 in this thread.
According to OSB ACL will increase turnover by some £800t and profit some £400t this season. More in a full season - even more if we get some nice cup games.
The club's contribution is not insignificant.

i just read that, could not track the numbers through to be honest.

 

[Godiva]

Yet we've been advised f+b turnover of £1M only ever generated profit of £100K previously

Isn't this one of the ancient quotes from back in early 2012? I seem to remember it was Fischer trying to paint the picture of a poorly managed ACL.
I am not sure if this is the case after Compass/ACL joint venture was formed.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Isn't this one of the ancient quotes from back in early 2012? I seem to remember it was Fischer trying to paint the picture of a poorly managed ACL.
I am not sure if this is the case after Compass/ACL joint venture was formed.

IEC Experience made a loss of £265k in the year to 31.5.14.

 

[Godiva]

IEC Experience made a loss of £265k in the year to 31.5.14.

What was the gross margin?
I am sure the overall loss was due to lower revenue.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

What was the gross margin?
I am sure the overall loss was due to lower revenue.

Compared to the year before sales were down £450k, GP margin was a fraction up 57.9% compared to 57.2%, loss was exactly the same, to the £, in each year.

 

[Godiva]

Compared to the year before sales were down £450k, GP margin was a fraction up 57.9% compared to 57.2%, loss was exactly the same, to the £, in each year.

Thanks!

 

[dongonzalos]

That again raises the issue that people will believe Fisher when it suits. In my opinion there is no way Fisher would admit he would have taken that deal after the fact.

Would SISU have turned it down, maybe, we don't know. But for me there should have been an open and transparent sale process where everyone knew what was available and anyone could make bids - to give an example similar to Birmingham Council's sale of the NEC. Had that happened we could have all concentrated our efforts on getting SISU to make the bid.

To be fair SISU have always maintained no one could do the deal wasps did. That is the crux of their JR argument. That no one could now buy ACL as the loan made it an unpurchasable business. Then Wasps went and did it.
So SISU could not do that deal as it destroyed their JR argument.

 

[chiefdave]

So SISU could not do that deal as it destroyed their JR argument.

I would suggest there is a strong likelihood that in the event of SISU obtaining ownership of the Ricoh the legal action would cease.

 

[tisza]

I would suggest there is a strong likelihood that in the event of SISU obtaining ownership of the Ricoh the legal action would cease.

surely not. we have been told that these proceedings are unfortunate but necessary on behalf of the taxpayers .