Butts Park Arena is new home (11 Viewers)

[letsallsingtogether]

What like?

Like all the telegraph print is bullshit

 

---

[Nick]

Like all the telegraph print is bullshit

I don't need to listen to anybody else, I can read (not everything is, either).

Imagine if it was them hiding stories for sisu...

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

I couldn't do anything, but at least we would have an idea rather than being completely in the dark.

Surely people would rather have more information than less?

So in other words it makes no difference because they are going to do whatever they want regardless of yo me or anybody else. So why do they need to show you the business case and that's what I was trying to point out in my original post.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

I couldn't do anything, but at least we would have an idea rather than being completely in the dark.

Surely people would rather have more information than less?

Yes we would, but every time anything is printed it is seen as bullshit.
Unfortunately that is what we have come to expect, due to years of bullshit from all sides.

 

[skybluetony176]

I couldn't do anything, but at least we would have an idea rather than being completely in the dark.

Surely people would rather have more information than less?

The only people who can give us the information is SISU, not the telegraph. Why you bring them into the argument is beyond me when all they can do is speculate like the rest of us. I suspect that if you and a few others on here spent as much time on here asking why the only party who can give the details chose not to as you do promoting elaborate conspiracy theories about every party who can't give us the details SISU might just feel some pressure to do so in the growing concerns of their customer base. All you're doing is constantly letting SISU of the hook and you're doing it willingly.

 

[thewards5579]

With regard the Wasps not wanting us there. Of course, it is hearsay and speculation, borne out of concern for the club.

My source may be wrong. But the court case is the problem. It was unwelcome and gave a warning sign that SISU cannot be partners in any venture (in their current format). The same source told me that Wasps were coming to Coventry and you may remember that I posted what he passed on to me. He has a friend high up at a well known sponsor of Wasps.

As for whether Wasps need the money, they may do a deal with the devil in the short term of course.

What is your source? Cranberry maybe you turkey

Sent from my Harrier Mini from EE using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

The only people who can give us the information is SISU, not the telegraph. Why you bring them into the argument is beyond me when all they can do is speculate like the rest of us. I suspect that if you and a few others on here spent as much time on here asking why the only party who can give the details chose not to as you do promoting elaborate conspiracy theories about every party who can't give us the details SISU might just feel some pressure to do so in the growing concerns of their customer base. All you're doing is constantly letting SISU of the hook and you're doing it willingly.

Do you mean like last just did when he brought it up? Have a day off, like you do on match days.

I.suspect if you spent as much time promoting the football team the site is about you would be able to talk about them.

Elaborate conspiracy theories? Ha you would probably fit in well on the cet site. Know nothing about the football, but angry as anything if anything was to ever happen that could be seen as negative.

 

[Paxman II]

there's a lot of valid points being made here. OSB has made the case for how WASP deal with their situation but I do beleive not everything will remain rosey for them in the long term as they would appear to be reliant on 'outside' income streams all of which have risk to them at any moment. They continue to get their 8k+ crowds and but they won't ever fill the Ricoh and they know it.
CCFC present a conundrum. For a moment imagine we make it to the Premiership in the next few seasons and frankly that's certainly a possibility as momentum gets hold. Now all of a sudden it's the football club filling the stadium week in week out with heavt footfall and spending way up benefiting WASP and our club. rent would have increased dramatically I'm sure. All making WASP position more and more stable and they would be glad of it. TV revenue would be enormous compared to the Rugby club and exposure 10 fold what the Rugby club can get leading to exposure and bookings for the Ricoh rising.
In this scenario can the football club sit back and watch their success helping along WASP without thinking this has to have more quid quo pro involved?
Bonds and re issue or whatever there would be room to maneuver on a deal somewhere in all of this to suit each side.
First we have to succeed on the pitch and get promotions. That is the golden ticket and that under our present financial constraints gets more difficult after league 1. But building a stadium with capacity less than 30k would be a mistake. So sit tight and see what develops...

 

[oldskyblue58]

there's a lot of valid points being made here. OSB has made the case for how WASP deal with their situation but I do beleive not everything will remain rosey for them in the long term as they would appear to be reliant on 'outside' income streams all of which have risk to them at any moment. They continue to get their 8k+ crowds and but they won't ever fill the Ricoh and they know it.
CCFC present a conundrum. For a moment imagine we make it to the Premiership in the next few seasons and frankly that's certainly a possibility as momentum gets hold. Now all of a sudden it's the football club filling the stadium week in week out with heavt footfall and spending way up benefiting WASP and our club. rent would have increased dramatically I'm sure. All making WASP position more and more stable and they would be glad of it. TV revenue would be enormous compared to the Rugby club and exposure 10 fold what the Rugby club can get leading to exposure and bookings for the Ricoh rising.
In this scenario can the football club sit back and watch their success helping along WASP without thinking this has to have more quid quo pro involved?
Bonds and re issue or whatever there would be room to maneuver on a deal somewhere in all of this to suit each side.
First we have to succeed on the pitch and get promotions. That is the golden ticket and that under our present financial constraints gets more difficult after league 1. But building a stadium with capacity less than 30k would be a mistake. So sit tight and see what develops...

Nothing wrong with that view Paxman I very much like the thought of CCFC being successful first and foremost on the pitch. Remain to be convinced as to how that promotion push is financed though given the level of debt/pseudo debt (pref shares) we have and the need for income that Wasps have. There are some big hurdles to overcome and the cost of competing at the top of the Championship gets more expensive as each season passes. Things like parachute payments do teams like us no favours at all. Will we have CCFC owners in the future (SISU or otherwise) prepared to dig deep to fund the shortfall and a stadium build ? :thinking about:

Like you say lets wait see what happens ....... there are still a number of options available

 

[Astute]

A lot of clubs with parachute payments still fail after relegation because of the Prem contracts they have already given players. And if they let some of these players go they can still end up with an average Championship side.

 

[stupot07]

Nothing wrong with that view Paxman I very much like the thought of CCFC being successful first and foremost on the pitch. Remain to be convinced as to how that promotion push is financed though given the level of debt/pseudo debt (pref shares) we have and the need for income that Wasps have. There are some big hurdles to overcome and the cost of competing at the top of the Championship gets more expensive as each season passes. Things like parachute payments do teams like us no favours at all. Will we have CCFC owners in the future (SISU or otherwise) prepared to dig deep to fund the shortfall and a stadium build ? :thinking about:

Like you say lets wait see what happens ....... there are still a number of options available

Agreed, I think having a plan that hopes one day we will be promoted to the PL is a bid pie in the sky. It's easy to focus on Norwich and Southampton but ignore Leeds, Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Charlton, and then you're on to the Peterborough's, doncasters, that have been promoted and the relegated (smaller clubs but financially their championship turnover not far off ours) etc.

Finances at the top end of the championship is expensive business and something we've not managed to get near despite losses of c£6-7m pa.

The repayment of the bonds is key, but I would think if sisu are still here they will likely fuck it up.


On another matter could you explain the bond security issue? And how that would be affected if wasps sold 50% of ACL?



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

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I'm not. I'm saying the importance of 365day a year revenue is being overstated and therefore a Red Herring. It's pretty clear that ticket revenue is king outside of the premier league surely maximizing this is the most important thing, you don't do that by building a 12-15k stadium and when in the premier league it's the TV money with ticket revenue second.

If that was true, then how were we in the bottom 4 for turnover when our attendances were average for the divsion? Teams with similar attendances to us were turning over more money than us and teams with significantly lower attendances were turning over similar to us.

 

[martcov]

It would help people make their mine up whether it is a good or bad decision though. Rather than just what the telegraph tells them it is.

What is the Telegraph's opinion on buying a stadium as opposed to renting a stadium? Which is the good decision?

 

[DerekFaulkner]

there's a lot of valid points being made here. OSB has made the case for how WASP deal with their situation but I do beleive not everything will remain rosey for them in the long term as they would appear to be reliant on 'outside' income streams all of which have risk to them at any moment. They continue to get their 8k+ crowds and but they won't ever fill the Ricoh and they know it.
CCFC present a conundrum. For a moment imagine we make it to the Premiership in the next few seasons and frankly that's certainly a possibility as momentum gets hold. Now all of a sudden it's the football club filling the stadium week in week out with heavt footfall and spending way up benefiting WASP and our club. rent would have increased dramatically I'm sure. All making WASP position more and more stable and they would be glad of it. TV revenue would be enormous compared to the Rugby club and exposure 10 fold what the Rugby club can get leading to exposure and bookings for the Ricoh rising.
In this scenario can the football club sit back and watch their success helping along WASP without thinking this has to have more quid quo pro involved?
Bonds and re issue or whatever there would be room to maneuver on a deal somewhere in all of this to suit each side.
First we have to succeed on the pitch and get promotions. That is the golden ticket and that under our present financial constraints gets more difficult after league 1. But building a stadium with capacity less than 30k would be a mistake. So sit tight and see what develops...

Why do you keep writing WASP instead of Wasps?

 

[Nick]

What is the Telegraph's opinion on buying a stadium as opposed to renting a stadium? Which is the good decision?

Which ever makes the club look Worse. I'd guess they want the club to sign long term at the ricoh, hence the pressure articles...

 

[martcov]

If that was true, then how were we in the bottom 4 for turnover when our attendances were average for the divsion? Teams with similar attendances to us were turning over more money than us and teams with significantly lower attendances were turning over similar to us.

In other words we should have gone for ACL come what may because that was the key to the life of the football club. Tapped up our potential investors ( that TF says are still around ) to finance buying an existing stadium with 365 days revenue. That was the only way. Haggling over 5,5m and trying to knock the YB was not clever. If we are ever going to get 365 days a year revenue, it will cost a lot more money and time than the full loan and the 2 half shares in ACL would have.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

What is the Telegraph's opinion on buying a stadium as opposed to renting a stadium? Which is the good decision?

I think that's pretty obvious Tim will tell you at a fans forum in a hotel. He'll tell you the projected income plus what the crowd will be depending on how well we are doing

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

What is the Telegraph's opinion on buying a stadium as opposed to renting a stadium? Which is the good decision?

They consulted an expert who said the current deal is good for a league 1 or 2 club but if we want to compete in the championship and beyond we should look for our own stadium.

 

[Nick]

They consulted an expert who said the current deal is good for a league 1 or 2 club but if we want to compete in the championship and beyond we should look for our own stadium.

Yet the headline said something completely different if I remember.

 

[martcov]

Which ever makes the club look Worse. I'd guess they want the club to sign long term at the ricoh, hence the pressure articles...

The club has no stadium and no site at the moment. Will the club look worse if it comes to a long term rental deal? A 5 year rental deal with an option for another 5 years will be necessary even if they build a stadium. It would be a great surprise if they had a finished stadium in 5 years - judging by what we have seen so far. If they get a good deal, the club may even seem to have made progress and assured stability.

 

[martcov]

They consulted an expert who said the current deal is good for a league 1 or 2 club but if we want to compete in the championship and beyond we should look for our own stadium.

So the Telegraph is backing Tim's point of view? Is that anti CCFC?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

So the Telegraph is backing Tim's point of view? Is that anti CCFC?

It is if it's backing Tim point of view

 

[martcov]

Yet the headline said something completely different if I remember.

So the Telegraph reports that it would be better to build a stadium and you say that the Telegraph would report that a long term rental is better in order to make the club look worse. Err OK. Is the telegraph bad or good then?

 

[oldskyblue58]

The bond holders have a charge not only over the long lease but also the ACL shares and assets. Any change in that situation (eg a sale of some ACL shares) affects the security value that the bondholders have. The bond holder trustees may say that the sale doesn't change the value or even improves it and leave things as they are with everything charged - will SISU accept taking on the Risk though allow a charge over their shares but not benefit from the bonds?. However if the bondholders view the new ownership as weaker that might mean a decrease in valuation of the security. Usually lenders will ask for additional assets or a decrease in their exposure ie reduce the amount outstanding.

Any potential sale of say the ACL shares triggers a decision to be made by the bondholders who are represented by their Trustees. In effect they approve it or not. They do not have to say yes. Do the bondholders see having CCFC on board as an improvement in their risk? As CCFC fans we would say yes but we are not talking CCFC fans who are making the decision

Also going forward even if the bondholders agree to say 50% of ACL shares being owned by Wasps and being charged then that reduces the Wasps Holdings income and assets going forward so you would think the bondholders would seek to reduce their amount outstanding to match the amount sold. that means applying the funds to repaying So to buy in could be going to cost (or be worth) at least £17m for 50%. Would they sell at par? or seek a profit?

Do Wasps & SISU have a relationship to do such a deal?
Operationally Wasps/ACL and CCFC seem to work ok together but outside of that is there a will to be capital interest partners? Who has control if it comes to it?
As it stands what does a L1 team bring terms of worth especially one loaded with debt already
If CCFC go up to the Championship that will improve CCFC trading turnover and to some degree its value but if it takes extra debt to maintain that division that may change the perception of risk for the Bond holders.
can both sides set a reasonable value even if Wasps want to sell - or do they play hard ball over and over (where we have been so often in this saga)
Past history will come in to peoples perception of risk rightly or wrongly.
Future projections will come in to it but will need to be better than "if we get in the Premiership look what it might earn or increase values"

Because of the terms of the issue and its security it is just not as easy as saying lets sell some to CCFC.

My guess is that Wasps do not want to sell in any case. I think what will be on offer, if anything is at all, is the rights to certain incomes. But it wont be for free or on the basis of look how much you could earn if we get to the premiership. The terms of such an agreement would have all sorts of caveats because ultimately the income streams affect the value of the lease which in turn affects the value of the bond security.

I have this nagging big doubt that it isn't about being a partner to anyone for SISU......... that's not their agenda

That's some of the problems, there may well be solutions, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the two sides being able to compromise sufficiently so that both feel they win something.

In the short term Wasps can easily just say you have the deal as it is take it or leave it (especially if SISU maintain what seems to be a fiction about a new stadium) ....... Why do Wasps need to offer anything or threaten the value of the security they have given...... its not like CCFC have anywhere to go in the next two or three years

 

[martcov]

I think that's pretty obvious Tim will tell you at a fans forum in a hotel. He'll tell you the projected income plus what the crowd will be depending on how well we are doing 

Got you. You mean like he predicted the following at Northampton? Well he certainly knows better than the Telegraph then... Err... Yes, well....,

 

[Nick]

Got you. You mean like he predicted the following at Northampton? Well he certainly knows better than the Telegraph then... Err... Yes, well....,

He does when it suits a point of view and he can be quoted as true fact...

 

[Nick]

So the Telegraph reports that it would be better to build a stadium and you say that the Telegraph would report that a long term rental is better in order to make the club look worse. Err OK. Is the telegraph bad or good then?

It may be a different article so don't quote me (I can't check). If it's that article it doesn't read much into the experts view on championship and above, it focuses on the league one stuff.

I could well be wrong though, it's going off memory!

 

[Nick]

The bond holders have a charge not only over the long lease but also the ACL shares and assets. Any change in that situation (eg a sale of some ACL shares) affects the security value that the bondholders have. They may say that the sale doesn't change the value or even improves it and leave things as they are with everything charged - will SISU accept taking on the Risk though. However if they view the new ownership as weaker that might mean a decrease in valuation of the security. Usually lenders will ask for additional assets or a decrease in their exposure ie reduce the amount outstanding.

Any potential sale of say the ACL shares triggers a decision to be made by the bondholders who are represented by their Trustees. In effect they approve it or not. They do not have to say yes. Do the bondholders see having CCFC on board as an improvement in their risk? As CCFC fans we would say yes but we are not talking CCFC fans who are making the decision

Also going forward even if the bondholders agree to say 50% of ACL shares being owned by Wasps and being charged then that reduces the Wasps Holdings income and assets going forward so you would think the bondholders would seek to reduce their amount outstanding to match the amount sold. So to buy in could be going to cost (or be worth) at least £17m. Would they sell at par? or seek a profit?

Do Wasps & SISU have a relationship to do such a deal?
Operationally Wasps/ACL and CCFC seem to work ok together but outside of that is there a will to be capital interest partners? Who has control if it comes to it?
As it stands what does a L1 team bring terms of worth especially one loaded with debt already
If CCFC go up to the Championship that might improve CCFC trading and to some degree its value but if it takes extra debt to maintain that division that may change the perception of risk for the Bond holders.

Because of the terms of the issue and its security it is just not as easy as saying lets sell some to CCFC.

My guess is that Wasps do not want to sell in any case. I think what will be on offer if anything is at all is the rights to certain incomes. But it wont be for free or on the basis of look how much you could earn if we get to the premiership. The terms of such an agreement would have all sorts of caveats because ultimately the income streams affect the value of the lease which in turn affects the value of the bond security.

That's some of the problems, there may well be solutions, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the two sides being able to compromise sufficiently so that both feel they win something.

In the short term Wasps can easily just say you have the deal as it is take it or leave it (especially if SISU maintain what seems to be a fiction about a new stadium) ....... Why do Wasps need to offer anything or threaten the value of the security they have given...... its not like CCFC have anywhere to go in the next two or three years

That's the thing, wasps can be in the driving seat can't they with this rental stuff. They have a pr and public opinion advantage going into it, they can put the pressure on the club to accept their terms.

I don't think they would be interested in getting rid if 50% to us, not unless is silly money

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Got you. You mean like he predicted the following at Northampton? Well he certainly knows better than the Telegraph then... Err... Yes, well....,

Yes and we have people on here who can't wait to follow him and his cronies to wherever he wants to lead us. Now if we had people who I had confidence in I would be behind them but not these. At every turn this club has been let down Ricoh,Sixfields ffs even the club shop and ticketing etc etc.

 

[martcov]

That's the thing, wasps can be in the driving seat can't they with this rental stuff. They have a pr and public opinion advantage going into it, they can put the pressure on the club to accept their terms.

I don't think they would be interested in getting rid if 50% to us, not unless is silly money

I think that, since Joy and Tim have got out of the limelight, and we are near the top of the division, the immediate pressure is less than it was. People want a sensible answer, whether that is definite progress on the new stadium or on a favourable rental deal. The latest stadium site rumour didn't even come from the Telegraph ( unless you include the " nothing happened today " story ). I don't think SISU will base their decision on CT articles anyway and think it is positive that Anderson is here. It is more likely that they listen to someone like him than a journalist from the Telegraph or the Observer.

 

[oldskyblue58]

That's the thing, wasps can be in the driving seat can't they with this rental stuff. They have a pr and public opinion advantage going into it, they can put the pressure on the club to accept their terms.

I don't think they would be interested in getting rid if 50% to us, not unless is silly money

To be honest Nick it wont have anything to do with PR. Not sure they (Wasps) are massively ahead in public opinion either, if at all. This is has to be for them about hard finance. That wont please posters like NW I know but that's where it is at. The Wasps "project" is and always has been a long game. They expect bumps in the road short term but their success is a longer term aim than the next two or three years. At the moment they don't have to pressure the club to do anything they have 2+2 lease which if SISU/CCFC did their job well means the same terms for the next 2.5 years. If CCFC continue to play well and attract crowds Wasps wont kick them out .... yet. But sooner or later SISU/CCFC have to commit or build

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

He does when it suits a point of view and he can be quoted as true fact...

Sorry Nick, but this really winds me up

As an official spokesperson for the club, we're all quite entitled to point to his "questionable" statements - and frankly take the piss out of them when they deserve it.

But whenever anyone does, we get this rather facile - well if you don't believe him all the time, you can't quote him - response.

 

[martcov]

Sorry Nick, but this really winds me up

As an official spokesperson for the club, we're all quite entitled to point to his "questionable" statements - and frankly take the piss out of them when they deserve it.

But whenever anyone does, we get this rather facile - well if you don't believe him all the time, you can't quote him - response.

Out of interest, is a company chairman obliged to tell the truth in public statements? Should we at least on the face of it, have to take him at his word?

 

[Nick]

Sorry Nick, but this really winds me up

As an official spokesperson for the club, we're all quite entitled to point to his "questionable" statements - and frankly take the piss out of them when they deserve it.

But whenever anyone does, we get this rather facile - well if you don't believe him all the time, you can't quote him - response.

Of course, people can quote him and question him. Surely using his statement in one breath and then saying he can't lie straight in bed in the other is a bit strange.

Everything should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, we have seen all sides posturing.

There's no issue with taking the piss out of him, but then you can't really use something as fact the next second he has said.

 

[stupot07]

The bond holders have a charge not only over the long lease but also the ACL shares and assets. Any change in that situation (eg a sale of some ACL shares) affects the security value that the bondholders have. They may say that the sale doesn't change the value or even improves it and leave things as they are with everything charged - will SISU accept taking on the Risk though. However if they view the new ownership as weaker that might mean a decrease in valuation of the security. Usually lenders will ask for additional assets or a decrease in their exposure ie reduce the amount outstanding.

Any potential sale of say the ACL shares triggers a decision to be made by the bondholders who are represented by their Trustees. In effect they approve it or not. They do not have to say yes. Do the bondholders see having CCFC on board as an improvement in their risk? As CCFC fans we would say yes but we are not talking CCFC fans who are making the decision

Also going forward even if the bondholders agree to say 50% of ACL shares being owned by Wasps and being charged then that reduces the Wasps Holdings income and assets going forward so you would think the bondholders would seek to reduce their amount outstanding to match the amount sold. So to buy in could be going to cost (or be worth) at least £17m. Would they sell at par? or seek a profit?

Do Wasps & SISU have a relationship to do such a deal?
Operationally Wasps/ACL and CCFC seem to work ok together but outside of that is there a will to be capital interest partners? Who has control if it comes to it?
As it stands what does a L1 team bring terms of worth especially one loaded with debt already
If CCFC go up to the Championship that might improve CCFC trading and to some degree its value but if it takes extra debt to maintain that division that may change the perception of risk for the Bond holders.
can both sides set a reasonable value even if Wasps want to sell - or do they play hard ball over and over (where we have been so often in this saga)
Past history will come in to peoples perception of risk rightly or wrongly.
Future projections will come in to it but will need to be better than if we get in the Premiership look what it might earn or increase values

Because of the terms of the issue and its security it is just not as easy as saying lets sell some to CCFC.

My guess is that Wasps do not want to sell in any case. I think what will be on offer if anything is at all is the rights to certain incomes. But it wont be for free or on the basis of look how much you could earn if we get to the premiership. The terms of such an agreement would have all sorts of caveats because ultimately the income streams affect the value of the lease which in turn affects the value of the bond security.

I have this nagging doubt that it isn't about being a partner to anyone for SISU......... that's not their agenda

That's some of the problems, there may well be solutions, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the two sides being able to compromise sufficiently so that both feel they win something.

In the short term Wasps can easily just say you have the deal as it is take it or leave it (especially if SISU maintain what seems to be a fiction about a new stadium) ....... Why do Wasps need to offer anything or threaten the value of the security they have given...... its not like CCFC have anywhere to go in the next two or three years

Thanks OSB, I think I understand that.

1) ACL, the fixture and fittings, lease is security for the bonds regardless of who holds the shares in ACL

2) the bond holders will have to approve or reject any sale of shares.

3) the security in the bonds mean that whoever buys in will have to pay 8-9x what wasps did

4) whoever buys will have to also take on the liability for a debt they never took on

5) wasps won't want to sell the shares anyway

6) wasps don't need the club and therefore are completely in the box seat for negotiations which will likely be a take it or leave it off

7) we're up shit creek without a paddle

8) wasps aren't going to make any deal based on on the improbability if flukeing a promotion in the future

It's all very depressing.

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