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.....
Of course if they could get it for free they would. We will never know as word of the Wasps deal forced them to bring us back.
You have they to explain the interest payments so I stand by my statement.
Yes. it's terrible that local businesses are picking up after Wasps came in and don't mention the staff being taken back on after the Sixfields debarcle !!
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.
So just to be clear, you're saying that the wasps bond prospectus was deliberately misleading?
Misleading yes, deliberately I don't know? The fact they say the same in the Telegraph "the club said" then somebody is misleading along the line. Is it Wasps misleading?
So you're suggesting that the oversubscribed prospectus mislead everyone in stocks,shares and bonds market and not one person who is involved in this industry on a daily basis worked this out but the administrator of a football forum did?
Sounds like you're talents are waisted Nick. Either that or you're talking complete bollocks.
I would agree that if people were professionals in the stock market they would probably understand it better, it doesn't mean it can't be misleading to some though does it? Is everybody who invested from the stocks and shares industry?
The fact it is also in the telegraph saying the club said, with exactly the same figure with words like "The club said" clearly show that it is intended to make people think that is what it is worth.
You got your tinfoil hat on again?
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.
No, I have just read it and can see how it was meant to come across and the impression it is meant to give.
Interesting how you know the thoughts of every person in the stocks industry though. Must be a mind reader with Italia. Interesting how you are so keen for him not to be proven wrong with his shite.
I shouldn't think a 'serious' investor would take that value as gospel, the main thing for them is they get their interest payments and the value of the bonds is secured against an asset that covers repayment. The payout is 6.5% pa which is v. good in the prevailing market. Even if the asset (the lease & associated commercial operations) was only valued at £25M (i.e. £10M less than the bond issue of £35M) at term the punters wouldn't lose, they would just be disappointed by a weaker than expected return.
I suspect in 2022 when the bonds mature Wasps will issue another bond to cover the payback & then try & scale back the interest they pay.
That's not making an argument for anyone, just my thoughts on the situation.
So if they understood the prospectus they weren't mislead but if they didn't understand the prospectus they were mislead?
It depends on what they understood and what they didn't understand. If they came to the conclusion the Ricoh was worth £48.5 then yes, they were mislead weren't they if it isn't the value? The same as readers of the CET would have been.
The other option is that they do actually value it at £48.5 million, and they got it for even more free according to Italia.
So back to the original point is there any actual evidence that SISU are taking millions out of the club?
We've been here before. There's 2 options. Either the value in the prospectus is dodgy or serious questions need to be asked about the sale price.
The 'its worth more now because Wasps are here' is rubbish. Wasps average crowd is lower than ours and they play far less games a year yet someone them being here increases the value of the Ricoh from under £6m to over £40m - no chance.
If you get something worth £20M (£14M of items + £6M for ACL) and you pay £8M (£2M + £6M) in theory you have actually made £12M profit and it has cost you less than nothing on your books..
So back to the original point is there any actual evidence that SISU are taking millions out of the club?
I think it was because of Italia's "SISU wanted it for free theory".
He won't admit Wasps did get it for free if that's his theory though. It only applies to SISU.
Your applying the Wasps theory so you'll need to explain that one.
You have not answered the question reference what would be the situation if the team were out in Northampton and Wasps were not here.
I.e. The original Sisu plan. Remember, the one you knowingly supported in it's first year ?
I suspect in 2022 when the bonds mature Wasps will issue another bond to cover the payback & then try & scale back the interest they pay.
.
The accounts show £2M+ plus going out in interest payments so assume they are until we get the details.
No it doesn't. It's interest accrued not payments. OSB clearly explains this in his analysis of the accounts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
It's not clear to me.
Perhaps you could explain what that actually means and why it so high in the Otium accounts ?
It means it isn't going out....
He's just being an idiot.
I suspect Eastwood is leaning on him to start some propaganda or he'll pull the plug on the car parks official status.
He's in trouble if this is the best he can do as he still has only managed to convince Tony.
He's just being an idiot.
I suspect Eastwood is leaning on him to start some propaganda or he'll pull the plug on the car parks official status.
He's in trouble if this is the best he can do as he still has only managed to convince Tony.
Why would Wasps be interested in our accounts unless they are doing due diligence?
An idiot is someone who does not ask questions and just accepts the bull5hit they are fed.
If anything the usual people are defending Sisu even though they do not know all the facts.
Same as going along with a new stadium without asking for the figures but still quoting Dim Fisher.
What the hell have you been smoking? You don't seem to know the facts but keep making silly statements over and over again?
It doesn't stop me making an interpretation of the limited facts available.
You will see from OSB58 post that they are staying within the law but manipulating between Sisu accounts.
All I care about is what the effects are on CCFC. Hence asking the questions or making a suggestion to flush out the reasoning.
OSB has answered the question on the high level of interest charged and also reinforced my worry of the debt carrying through and making us more difficult to sell.
He has also reminded me I need to get my accounts in :thinking about:
Back on topic, the Worcester ticket sales must be really desperate.
Loads of e mails on free offers for them over the last couple of days.
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?