Back to being the biggest club in Coventry? (3 Viewers)

[Sick Boy]

A grade A tit

 

---

[italiahorse]

So they are mis informing investors?

Amazing how there's an excuse or reason when compared with wasps.

Your not very good at this are you ?

There is a similar pattern though as you suggest.
Sisu took us away to bring the value down. They new that CCC would eventually have to let it go at a reduced value as an empty stadium.
Unfortunately, Wasps bought it at the market value that Sisu had created and when they moved in the value increased.
Now that increase is open to interpretation and obviously Wasps put it in at a premium in their prospectus.

It's easy to see how a tenant in the stadium increases it's value and how a tenant with a plan can actually generate a scenario where it can be raised even higher.

In hind sight I can't understand why Sisu never bought the Higgs share at the value that Higgs bought it off CCFC. It looks a big error now.

 

[Nick]

Unfortunately, Wasps bought it at the market value that Sisu had created and when they moved in the value increased.

Yes, so it was the same as what you are saying SISU were trying to do when they were trying to get it for "nothing" because the value would be more. Wasps actually did it though, so they got it for "nothing" but that's just good business I bet?

 

[italiahorse]

like your good self.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I could have seen a scenario where I would have bought shares in a Ricoh with CCFC in control.
It will never happen now while Sisu are in control of the club as I know what they are like and can't be trusted.

 

[skybluetony176]

So they are mis informing investors?

Amazing how there's an excuse or reason when compared with wasps.

The same OSB who smash's Italia's theories on management charges seems to back up Italia's theory on the valuation in the prospectus.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/61097-Wasps-Value-Ricoh-Arena-at-£48-5-million/page3

 

[Nick]

The same OSB who smash's Italia's theories on management charges seems to back up Italia's theory on the valuation in the prospectus.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/61097-Wasps-Value-Ricoh-Arena-at-£48-5-million/page3

I haven't doubted that, just that Wasps did what SISU were trying to do. Just good business if Wasps did it though.

Oh and best have a word with the telegraph then

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-value-ricoh-arena-10357325

The revaluation of the Arena to £48.5m stands out, something the club said represented an uplift of £29.3m.

Maybe the telegraph should have checked before copying and pasting

 

[skybluetony176]

Yes, so it was the same as what you are saying SISU were trying to do when they were trying to get it for "nothing" because the value would be more. Wasps actually did it though, so they got it for "nothing" but that's just good business I bet?

It was for Wasps. The same as it would have been for SISU yet they didn't want to make an offer to the council. You can't blame anyone for that but SISU. I'm sure you'll give it a good go though.

 

[Nick]

It was for Wasps. The same as it would have been for SISU yet they didn't want to make an offer to the council. You can't blame anyone for that but SISU. I'm sure you'll give it a good go though.

Nope, my point is that Italia is saying CCFC tried to get it for "free". Which was incorrect, he then backtracked about how it was nothing to him. Which then means the same can be applied for Wasps, can't it? Or is it different then?

According to Italia if the value has gone up since Wasps bought it, they got it for free.

 

[skybluetony176]

I haven't doubted that, just that Wasps did what SISU were trying to do. Just good business if Wasps did it though.

Oh and best have a word with the telegraph then

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-value-ricoh-arena-10357325



Maybe the telegraph should have checked before copying and pasting

So when you asked the leading question of "So they are mis informing investors?" You were being deliberately stupid then?

Nice diversion tactic of bringing the CT into it.

 

[Nick]

So when you asked the leading question of "So they are mis informing investors?" You were being deliberately stupid then?

Nice diversion tactic of bringing the CT into it.

It isn't diverting anything is it? It is the same subject, I quote from them:

The revaluation of the Arena to £48.5m stands out, something the club said represented an uplift of £29.3m.

Is the telegraph wrong then? Why hasn't it been corrected? Wasps and the CET are misinforming the Coventry Public aren't they?

The prospectus says:

Strutt & Parker LLP prepared a valuation of the Arena for the purposes of inclusion in the Prospectus (

That could very well be misleading if they didn't have an OSB to break it down.

Either way.

1. There are no management fees going to SISU's pocket
2. Nobody wanted the Ricoh for free.

 

[italiahorse]

Yes, so it was the same as what you are saying SISU were trying to do when they were trying to get it for "nothing". Wasps actually did it though, so they got it for "nothing" but that's just good business I bet?

It's not Wasps fault it's Sisu's

 

[Nick]

It's not Wasps fault it's Sisu's

What is? You keep making these incorrect statements and when called back on them, or they are turned round to Wasps it suddenly changes.

 

[skybluetony176]

It isn't diverting anything is it? It is the same subject, I quote from them:



Is the telegraph wrong then? Why hasn't it been corrected? Wasps and the CET are misinforming the Coventry Public aren't they?

The prospectus says:



That could very well be misleading if they didn't have an OSB to break it down.

Either way.

1. There are no management fees going to SISU's pocket
2. Nobody wanted the Ricoh for free.

Misleading to who? Anyone that purchased the Bonds?

 

[Nick]

Huge

Misleading to who? Anyone that purchased the Bonds?

Anybody who reads the prospectus or the local media.

I'm not sure you would be able to disagree with Italia though?

 

[italiahorse]

Nope, my point is that Italia is saying CCFC tried to get it for "free". Which was incorrect, he then backtracked about how it was nothing to him. Which then means the same can be applied for Wasps, can't it? Or is it different then?

According to Italia if the value has gone up since Wasps bought it, they got it for free.

It was my opinion based on what I knew. How do you know it would have been incorrect ?
If the fans had gone to Sixfields in numbers for 3 years how low would they force it?

I never mentioned Wasps got it for free so you must have dreamt it from something.

The way you challenge everything against Sisu some people could think you are on their payroll !!

 

[skybluetony176]

Anybody who reads the prospectus or the local media.

I'm not sure you would be able to disagree with Italia though?

I think you're confusing misleading with misunderstanding.

 

[italiahorse]

Anybody who reads the prospectus or the local media.

I'm not sure you would be able to disagree with Italia though?

Where did the local media say the bonds were worth buying ?

 

[Nick]

It was my opinion based on what I knew. How do you know it would have been incorrect ?
If the fans had gone to Sixfields in numbers for 3 years how low would they force it?

I never mentioned Wasps got it for free so you must have dreamt it from something.

The way you challenge everything against Sisu some people could think you are on their payroll !!

No, you said SISU wanted it for free. Which was bollocks, the same as it would be to say Wasps got it for free. However, if you were to apply your logic they would have got it for free.

The way you challenge everything about Wasps would make people think you benefit from them being here. Oh wait...

Who could think I was on their payroll? People who are stupid enough to take anything you say seriously I guess. Especially as you have written more Pro SISU stuff than most people on here. I'd say the fact that your car park is listed on the official Ricoh site as a car park for Rugby means you are closer to the payroll

 

[Nick]

Where did the local media say the bonds were worth buying ?

I didn't say worth buying, I said value of the Ricoh.

Are you being stupid on purpose to try and hide the fact you have been talking shit?

 

[Nick]

I think you're confusing misleading with misunderstanding.

Mislead:

cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.

Nope, I mean misleading.

Wasps have slapped a value of £48.5million on the Ricoh Arena in its latest set of accounts.

The revaluation of the Arena to £48.5m stands out, something the club said represented an uplift of £29.3m.

That would make 99.9% of people think that the Ricoh is now valued at £48.5. If it isn't, then it is misleading. Isn't it?

 

[chiefdave]

So they are mis informing investors?

Isn't that how they nearly ended up going bust in the first place? Massively overvalued their share in Loftus Road, gained credit off the back of the valuation then couldn't pay the bills when they were called out on it.

 

[skybluetony176]

Mislead:

cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.

Nope, I mean misleading.





That would make 99.9% of people think that the Ricoh is now valued at £48.5. If it isn't, then it is misleading. Isn't it?

But the devil is in the details. If you don't understand or seek understanding from some who does understand you have misunderstood not been mislead. There's a big difference.

 

[Nick]

But the devil is in the details. If you don't understand or seek understanding from some who does understand you have misunderstood not been mislead. There's a big difference.

Are you being serious?

It says:

Wasps have slapped a value of £48.5million on the Ricoh Arena in its latest set of accounts.

That to me says that they value it at £48.5, I shouldn't need to have to seek financial help to read the local media. It is quite clearly misleading.

Then

The revaluation of the Arena to £48.5m stands out, something the club said represented an uplift of £29.3m.

says it again.

There is nothing to be misunderstood from that. They want you to think it is valued at £48.5.

Oh and the headline is:

Wasps RFC value Ricoh Arena at £48.5m in latest accounts

Yep, I'd say that was misleading. You can't really argue otherwise can you? Your argument for that sounds like when Simon was trying to argue about the meaning of recalled when they posted Kent was being recalled a few months ago when pulled up on it.

 

[skybluetony176]

Are you being serious?

It says:



That to me says that they value it at £48.5, I shouldn't need to have to seek financial help to read the local media. It is quite clearly misleading.

Then says it again.

There is nothing to be misunderstood from that. They want you to think it is valued at £48.5.

Oh and the headline is:




Yep, I'd say that was misleading. You can't really argue otherwise can you? Your argument for that sounds like when Simon was trying to argue about the meaning of recalled when they posted Kent was being recalled a few months ago when pulled up on it.

So you're saying that the CT is doing the misleading not the prospectus?

 

[stupot07]

But the devil is in the details. If you don't understand or seek understanding from some who does understand you have misunderstood not been mislead. There's a big difference.

Sorry Tony, but only an idiot would believe that the CT statement doesn't imply that the Ricoh is worth £48m, and that the average CT reader / Joe Public reading that article wouldn't have come to that conclusion. Yes, the CT got it from the prospectus, so their source is the prospectus.

For Chris sake Brian from Bedworth thinks wasps are debt free, and they're OK because they dropped London from their name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Nick]

So you're saying that the CT is doing the misleading not the prospectus?

Those quotes are from the CET.

The one in the Prospectus (I think said the value of the arena or the value of the ricoh arena). That could be misleading, you shouldn't really have to have it translating should you? Especially when the CET were then shouting about the same value as the prospectus using things like "The Club said".

It must have misled the Telegraph to lead to the article.... I am sure people interested in buying also came to the same conclusion.

 

[Moff]

It's not Wasps fault it's Sisu's

The fact Wasps are bottom 4 is all their own fault

 

[italiahorse]

No, you said SISU wanted it for free. Which was bollocks, the same as it would be to say Wasps got it for free. However, if you were to apply your logic they would have got it for free.

The way you challenge everything about Wasps would make people think you benefit from them being here. Oh wait...

Who could think I was on their payroll? People who are stupid enough to take anything you say seriously I guess. Especially as you have written more Pro SISU stuff than most people on here.

You have no way of knowing how far Sisu would take it if we were still out at Sixfields ........... or do you ??
You have seen the conditions required before they would proceed with their Higgs offer, all of which which were never achievable.

I'm not embarrassed to say I supported Sisu when they 'saved' our club from the unthinkable (at the time) administration, but don't make it out it was last week to support a failing argument.

 

[Nick]

You have no way of knowing how far Sisu would take it if we were still out at Sixfields ........... or do you ??
You have seen the conditions required before they would proceed with their Higgs offer, all of which which were never achievable.

I'm not embarrassed to say I supported Sisu when they 'saved' our club from the unthinkable (at the time) administration, but don't make it out it was last week to support a failing argument.

So now your evidence is a "what if"? Earlier on your evidence was figures from the JR. There is nothing at all to suggest they expected it for £0, which is free.

Failing argument? You are the one who stated 2 incorrect facts.

You resorted to a SISU Payroll line, when you are working in business with Wasps to have an official car park for Rugby games.....

 

[italiahorse]

The fact Wasps are bottom 4 is all their own fault

It's a worry but I'm holding it together.

 

[chiefdave]

so you're saying that the ct is doing the misleading not the prospectus?

The Arena has been independently valued by Strutt & Parker LLP (Chartered Surveyors) on 23 April 2015.Strutt & Parker LLP prepared a valuation of the Arena for the purposes of inclusion in the Prospectus. In preparing the valuation, the following assumptions were made by Strutt & Parker:
(a) that the Arena is structurally free of defects;
(b) that no deleterious or hazardous materials were used in the construction of the
(c) that plant and machinery are serviceable, efficient, safe and adequate for purpose;
(d) that the Arena is not affected by mining or other works;
(e) that the Arena is not affected by any environmental issues; and
(f) that all licences and certificates would be available to a third party purchaser of the Arena to enable the hotel, conferencing, banqueting and events facilities to continue to trade without interruption.

The valuation of the Arena given by Strutt & Parker for the long leasehold interest as at 23 April 2015 is £48,500,000. This is significantly higher than the valuation in the audited accounts of ACL as the ACL accounts value the Arena purely at its historic cost less depreciation, whilst Strutt & Parker make assumptions as to future trading (i.e. Strutt & Parker give the market value). In addition, pursuant to the Conditions of the Bonds, Guarantors and ACL2006 have undertaken that they will together require further independent appraisals of the value of the Arena, together with the current value of the P- Shares, not less than once in each consecutive 24 month period, the first such valuation date to be no later than 30 June 2016.

If you read the actual valuation report it is explicitly stated that it is the value it should achieve should it be sold.

 

[Moff]

It's a worry but I'm holding it together.

Stay strong!

 

[skybluetony176]

Those quotes are from the CET.

The one in the Prospectus (I think said the value of the arena or the value of the ricoh arena). That could be misleading, you shouldn't really have to have it translating should you? Especially when the CET were then shouting about the same value as the prospectus using things like "The Club said".

It must have misled the Telegraph to lead to the article.... I am sure people interested in buying also came to the same conclusion.

I would think that anyone buying the bonds would either have the knowledge to understand the valuation or have the good sense to employ the services of someone like OSB before they do. If they buy for any other reason they haven't been mislead they didn't understand what they were getting into. I'm pretty sure they didn't go to the CT for advice on buying Wasps bonds they'd have gone to someone who understands the prospectus and accounts for that.

 

[Nick]

I would think that anyone buying the bonds would either have the knowledge to understand the valuation or have the good sense to employ the services of someone like OSB before they do. If they buy for any other reason they haven't been mislead they didn't understand what they were getting into. I'm pretty sure they didn't go to the CT for advice on buying Wasps bonds they'd have gone to someone who understands the prospectus and accounts for that.

If they bought them thinking that the value of the Ricoh was 48.5 million they were misled. Especially if they then saw the CET article which backed that thought up.

 

[skybluetony176]

If you read the actual valuation report it is explicitly stated that it is the value it should achieve should it be sold.

So if the valuation comes from an independent chartered surveyor who's being mislead?