WhaleOilBeefHooked
Well-Known Member
I've just had a chance to read through the accounts and it directly mentions it, thereby proving my point.
Feel free to read it yourself.
No. Not to turnover operating costs or cash flow
Let’s go through these one by one - how does any future actions impact those key measures?
Explain
Pages 11 and 12 if you care to checkOh well looks like he’s gone back to uncle Nicky for a briefing - I’m sure he’ll be back
I've just had a chance to read through the accounts and it directly mentions it, thereby proving my point.
Feel free to read it yourself.
Excellent
So please explain how this impacts cash flow decline in the business over the period
That’s my question (well the first)
Once you’ve answered it we will move on to revenue impact and then cost impact
Can you do this please abs justify the statement that potential court action threatens current key indicator performance
Your getting a balance sheet and a financial statement mixed up pal.
Where did I mention Key Indicator Performance? What an odd comment. Are you disabled?
No I’m not disabled - I’m also not like you on the wrong forum.
This isn’t just a financial statement “pal” it shows cash flow is getting worse and Richardson has had to put something like £12m in two years to keep the club afloat
They had nothing to do with court case threats do they.
It’s real trading issues that’s causing the issue
Still good to see you think court action is causing such negatives to the account statement. Long may the action continue as we want the scum gone don’t we?
So it's a no from both of you then even though one of you suggested it and the other liked it.A typically predictable response from someone who supports the Herods Baby mantra
Seriously, what in the actual fuck are you on about?
I started talking about debt and the financial accounts. You're talking about cash flow and balance sheets. They're two entirely separate things. I'm not even arguing with you about cash flow which I happen to agree with.
You try so hard to sound intelligent all the time, you actually come across as a bit of a clown.
The accounts reference it and state that they've been advised to the case is without merit and it's been dismissed by the supreme court. Not much else they can sayOh yeah, the ongoing litigation of an attempt to seize control of the Ricoh from them (their main asset) isn't a huge factor.
I'll just nod and smile at you, Grendel.
Why are you here? Your not even good at it.
Doesn’t seem to be any sign of the news on the Telegraph site. Odd as they are normally very quick with Wasps stories.
Almost like Wasps are trying to keep the bad news quiet.
Any sign of what news?Doesn’t seem to be any sign of the news on the Telegraph site. Odd as they are normally very quick with Wasps stories.
Almost like Wasps are trying to keep the bad news quiet.
Wasps Holdings debts are in excess of their assets. Congratulations to Coventry City Council for securing the future of the arena!
In what way does Wasps’ debt threaten the survival of the arena?
And you might wanna look at City’s accounts if you think that’s an argument for selling to us!
Wasps Holdings debts are in excess of their assets. Congratulations to Coventry City Council for securing the future of the arena!
I think the idea was to get rid of the debt, which happened, its all on Wasps now, if they fold then the Arena lease will be up for purchase won't it?
HopefullyI think the idea was to get rid of the debt, which happened, its all on Wasps now, if they fold then the Arena lease will be up for purchase won't it?
Debt is rarely a good thing and is only ever a sustainable ploy if the debts can be guaranteed to be serviced.Man Utd has €200m net debt, in excess of their assets, FYI.
Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in business, or in normal life. If you take out a mortgage, you have more debt than assets if you're including interest over the term.
The issue with the bond is that whilst it is repayable in 2022 Wasps have absolutely no chance to pay that back. The bad news is that it is very common to re-finance the debt and the key to that being successful will inevitably the value of the underlying asset which the report says is due in 2019 - if that goes up in value investor confidence will be greater and help any refinancing scheme. As a rugby fan (not a wasps fan) their whole manner of operating I despise, the debt seems to be increasing (but that is common across rugby as a whole in the premiership), and actually their focus seems to be on the commercial aspects these days and driving the development of the commercial facilities. Can't see how they can get a training ground built without majority stakeholder ploughing more money into that black hole
I wonder how many of the fans are actually bond holders would certainly be an interesting stat
BTW. Do those two fellas posting previously not like each other?
Refinancing is often quoted but the reality is if the bond crashed and failed to yield a return on capital and investment then other far more expensive options would need to be explored.
The original bond was unusually popular fineness the obvious issues. One wonders if Moonstone invested.
The bond isn’t really against the asset value of the Ricoh is it? It’s an unsecured loan due to the terms assiciated with the circumstance of ACL going into liquidation
Yes but if the coupon % increases then the fans are inadvertently starving their own club of cash. I wonder how many investors really are fans tbh.All retail bonds are unsecured - it is in their nature. Sorry my previous statement was misleading and confusing. Should really have said that investors will look at the security behind the bond, in this case the Arena, simply because in worst case scenario will the sale of the asset cover all the secured debt and then the unsecured debt. Which is why next valuation will be so important, in reality Wasps would never sell the stadium to pay for the bond
It is very easy to re-finance a bond as typically the bond holders maintain their position, albeit often they will expect a higher coupon % The support to that assumption is that the value of the bond has not dropped further. I would have expected to see it fall if the holders were worried about their investment.
This is why I was so intrigued by the stats on fan% holding bonds as I would expect them to keep a hold and keep taking the coupon payments
All retail bonds are unsecured - it is in their nature. Sorry my previous statement was misleading and confusing. Should really have said that investors will look at the security behind the bond, in this case the Arena, simply because in worst case scenario will the sale of the asset cover all the secured debt and then the unsecured debt. Which is why next valuation will be so important, in reality Wasps would never sell the stadium to pay for the bond
It is very easy to re-finance a bond as typically the bond holders maintain their position, albeit often they will expect a higher coupon % The support to that assumption is that the value of the bond has not dropped further. I would have expected to see it fall if the holders were worried about their investment.
This is why I was so intrigued by the stats on fan% holding bonds as I would expect them to keep a hold and keep taking the coupon payments
We’re so luckily new members with a forensic knowledge of London Wasps finances are able to sign up and assist us in this difficult time.
I am not intimate on Wasps finances - I know about as much as anyone here - so not a lot. However I am an auditor by trade in financial services so actually do understand a lot of the subjectWe’re so luckily new members with a forensic knowledge of London Wasps finances are able to sign up and assist us in this difficult time.
But it isn’t secured against the Arena is it? If ACL went into administration the lease reverts back to the original lease and will be worthless
Ultimately if Wasps as whole were to no longer receive funds from DR and were forced to cease trading it's assets would be sold off to pay for anyone indebted to the organisation. What it means for the lease I have no idea - are you sure that it is accurate that it would revert back? If that were the case and I was invested I would be worried because it would have a huge impact on the value of the underlying asset that would be used to pay of those with a charge
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?