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.
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.It also amazing how many outraged taxpayers aren't Coventry taxpayers.
Do you know if the retail bond is index liked or is it fixed?Wasps' most recent accounts for the last 6 months of 2016 show a loss of over 1 million and an operating cash flow deficit of more than 2.5 million. In other words, their business shows no sign of any improvement when compared to the losses they incurred in previous years. If they get a run of bad form on the pitch, the attendances will drop dramatically and they are then finished. It's just a matter of time as far as I am concerned.
You should contact the FCA and offer your expert advice if you truly believe it was a Ponzi scheme. I'm no legal expert like yourself but I'm pretty sure they're illegal.
Do you know if the retail bond is index liked or is it fixed?
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.
No You don't get the point.As usual Toni and Obtuse miss the point. Wasps moved for the 47 year lease as they'd got a de facto agreement to extend it prior to even taking over ACL
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
I don't disagree and never have. Wasps owed him 20m IIRC. It was the only way of getting any of it back.Well, clearly they did have to raise the extra 10m because their Chairman needed the money. I heard he needed it due to margin calls on his other business activities but that's only a rumour.
Yep, which essentially makes their bond issue a Ponzi scheme.
I was asleep. Woke up to hearing the third goal going inIt'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.
It is fixed. And as they are only paying interest the amount owed stays the same.Do you know if the retail bond is index liked or is it fixed?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
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.
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.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.
Only an idiot would say it is.If they do take us away it certainly wouldn't be for footballing reasons, the benefit of the club or the fan base.
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.
I did as you said.Delete as appropriate.
I did mean the interest rate yesDo you mean the interest payments? My recollection is that the interest payments are fixed, subject to Wasps remaining in compliance with its loan covenants.
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.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.
The legal right was there whatever. But yes I agree that it was all sorted out before the deal was done.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
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.Er we never owned the lease.
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...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 you are. A quote "SISU never put forward any viable plans for the Ricoh."
The club was destroyed when Highfield Road was sold imo. Without the means to pay for its own stadium the financial disasters were inevitable.No way the football league put us out of business even though they have allowed our club to be all but destroyed already
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
I wont argue with you as I respect your avatar too much \m/
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.
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.
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.
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....
Show me any evidence there are concerned taxpayers. They don't care.
Oh, I agree. However if SISU aren't Otium surely it follows that ARVO aren't SISU.
No need. They'll be taking us on a tour. Could have a season at each.
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.
Think Fishers stance was that the loan made to ACL was crippling the company so presumably the same would apply to the Wasps bond.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?
Not if it is like the last appeal.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.
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?