Latest Wasps accounts filed (2 Viewers)

[SimonGilbert]

Operating loss of £4m, overall profit of £6.3m:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-accounts-show-63m-overall-8720201

 

---

[Nick]

Interesting that Wasps pay rent to play there....

Can OSB translate it? Or godiva?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Interesting that Wasps pay rent to play there....

Can OSB translate it? Or godiva?

I've done a forensic analysis of the figures, and can conclude that they're fucked, and they will remain fucked even with ACL.

This bit is interesting:

He said: “When you look at the strange exceptional item (£10.6million Canmango transaction), and take it away, you may think Wasps are doing really badly.

“But, in Mr Richardson’s first full year of ownership, we have invested quite significant in the strength of the playing squad, coaching staff and management as part of a long term strategic view, that’s why our costs are high.

“The business hasn’t done particularly worse or better than previous years, what we were doing was building and preparing for a move to a permanent home.

When was this "exceptional item" paid to Wasps? Doubt if it would have been made if the Ricoh deal not already agreed.

 

[chiefdave]

Sure someone more qualified will explain but isn't this like Fisher saying we've made a £6m profit only to find out we really lost £4m but SISU put £10m in? What happens next year if another equivalent amount isn't put it, before you even consider they will have an additional expenditure next year in purchasing ACL.

Am I missing something as it doesn't look too positive to me.

 

[Grendel]

Sure someone more qualified will explain but isn't this like Fisher saying we've made a £6m profit only to find out we really lost £4m but SISU put £10m in? What happens next year if another equivalent amount isn't put it, before you even consider they will have an additional expenditure next year in purchasing ACL.

Am I missing something as it doesn't look too positive to me.

The £10 million should be included. Comamgo has one share which is owned by Richardson.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Sure someone more qualified will explain but isn't this like Fisher saying we've made a £6m profit only to find out we really lost £4m but SISU put £10m in? What happens next year if another equivalent amount isn't put it, before you even consider they will have an additional expenditure next year in purchasing ACL.

Am I missing something as it doesn't look too positive to me.

Nothing we didn't already know tbh, Wasps were reported to be losing 3 million a year. Gone up a million by the look of it over the last year.


I doubt the Ricoh and higher attendances at a lower price are gonna make up the short fall tbh.

 

[oldskyblue58]

This exceptional item has been brought about because of a change of ownership of Canmango Ltd

26/06/14 London wasps Holdings (LWH Ltd) acquired Canmango Ltd for £1 off Richardson. Canmango had lent LWH £10.6m but in its own books had written that debt down to nil. Now that LWH own Canmango that company forms part of the LWH group and the value of £10.6 is reinstated, which gives rise to the exceptional item, to be able to consolidate the group figures. Basically as an external LWH Group debt the £10.6m has been written off, because LWH Group now owes itself 10.6m because it has acquired canmango ltd for £1.

in terms of trading then the group lost 4m but the have benefited by 10.6m it had on the loan/canmango being acquired for £1

No real improvement trading wise over the previous year but would that have been expected given the set up was the same at wycombe ie pre acquisition of ACL

they paid out 6.6m in wages compared to 5.97m in 2013 and have 107 employees in the year up from 96 (less players more admin)

Turnover went up from 6.06m to 6.5m and average gates from 6654 to 8846 (season tickets up from 2730 to 2893 - nothing to shout about)

they paid out 259k in interest up from 156k in 2013 - I suspect largely relating to the debt to Close leasing etc

The negative position on the group balance sheet was 7.9m but of that 8.5m was due to Richardson who has said he will not call it in for the foreseeable future and does not charge interest. That eases the balance sheet risk and there is no going concern risk other than that in the eyes of the directors or auditors. The Auditors make no mention of going concern being a risk in their report. Richardson put in 4.7m in the year to 30/06/14

in the year they paid out 500k in operating rentals which will cease now they are at the Ricoh

LWH owned by moonstone which is owned by MGI fiduciary which is controlled by Richardson despite it being in Malta. Pretty clear who owns Wasps and disclosed

there are brief details of acquiring ACL but nothing new

Not a great set of figures but acquiring canmango for £1 allows them to show a positive overall which to a degree on casual glance counters the argument they are loss making and in dire straits.

They didn't trade at a profit but have an owner prepared to invest and write off debt for the Group plus not calling in his remaining debt for the foreseeable or charging interest

 

[stupot07]

So basically wasps the club made a £4m loss before the owner gave them some cash to cover those losses?


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

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

So basically wasps the club made a £4m loss before the owner gave them some cash to cover those losses?


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

Pretty much
I've been trying to decipher osb58 post, I think the 10.6 mill was an old loan which has been written off as the company (owned by Derek Richardson) who the money was owed to have now been sold to Wasps for £1.

 

[martcov]

So basically wasps the club made a £4m loss before the owner gave them some cash to cover those losses?


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

Basically Wasps owner is behind them and they are moving forward at high Speed as opposed to CCFC driving into a brick wall at high speed.

 

[stupot07]

Basically Wasps owner is behind them and they are moving forward at high Speed as opposed to CCFC driving into a brick wall at high speed.

I think shows the massive difference in between running and funding a football club to a rugby club. Amazing to think that our staffing costs in league one in 2012/13 was higher than a european rugby team.

And also the extra funding they get considering our turnovers were pretty much par even though we had higher attendances, 2 big cup ties bringing in a lot of income, selling bigi, keogh, compo for robins, at promotion payments for turner and Gunnar...


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

 

[SimonGilbert]

I've uploaded the full Wasps accounts to my Facebook page for anyone who is interested:

https://www.facebook.com/TheSimonGilbert

 

[Grendel]

Basically Wasps owner is behind them and they are moving forward at high Speed as opposed to CCFC driving into a brick wall at high speed.

Yes they are looking really debt free and will I am sure be worth a lot more in 5 years than they are now.

 

[duffer]

Unless I've misunderstood it then, Wasps are reliant on a sugar daddy in the form of Richardson.

This isn't a profitable or sustainable business unless he's willing to keep putting his hands in his pockets (currently) to the tune of at least a few million pounds a year. If for whatever reason he pulls out, and no one else steps in, Wasps goes pop.

At that point the taxpayer is on the hook for whatever is left of the £14.4m bailout to ACL.

Have I missed something here, because that doesn't look like a great deal for the taxpayer to me.

 

[chiefdave]

Have I missed something here, because that doesn't look like a great deal for the taxpayer to me.

What you've missed is that by taking over the loss making ACL they will now be fine. Of course nobody has actually explained how that works out but it keeps being said as if its fact. No matter how good the ale is or how long the hall is open for they're going to need to sell a shitload of it to make up those losses.

 

[albatross]

Unless I've misunderstood it then, Wasps are reliant on a sugar daddy in the form of Richardson.

This isn't a profitable or sustainable business unless he's willing to keep putting his hands in his pockets (currently) to the tune of at least a few million pounds a year. If for whatever reason he pulls out, and no one else steps in, Wasps goes pop.

At that point the taxpayer is on the hook for whatever is left of the £14.4m bailout to ACL.

Have I missed something here, because that doesn't look like a great deal for the taxpayer to me.

Yes they have a sugar Daddy that has made a significant investment at the front end of a business plan they are currently executing.

These figures reflect the old regime and earning so its difficult to make a call as to what they really mean in the current context. If they are succeeding yow would expect the figures to improve over time and we will only see the start of that in 12 months time and their business plan may allow for a decreasing loss over a couple of seasons until the group break even and make a profit.

If CCFC are lucky enough to get a new investor I would not expect us to initially make a profit but show decreasing losses eventually pushing into profit

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Unless I've misunderstood it then, Wasps are reliant on a sugar daddy in the form of Richardson.

This isn't a profitable or sustainable business unless he's willing to keep putting his hands in his pockets (currently) to the tune of at least a few million pounds a year. If for whatever reason he pulls out, and no one else steps in, Wasps goes pop.

At that point the taxpayer is on the hook for whatever is left of the £14.4m bailout to ACL.

Have I missed something here, because that doesn't look like a great deal for the taxpayer to me.

This may be a bit simple, but whats to stop him in 5 years time calling his debt in and then when Wasps can't pay it just takin the Ricoh in the form of ACL to cover the debt?

 

[albatross]

This may be a bit simple, but whats to stop him in 5 years time calling his debt in and then when Wasps can't pay it just takin the Ricoh in the form of ACL to cover the debt?

In theory nothing is there to stop him taking his money but why would he do that? he is behind WASPS and they are running the show so infect he already has it.

 

[duffer]

Yes they have a sugar Daddy that has made a significant investment at the front end of a business plan they are currently executing.

These figures reflect the old regime and earning so its difficult to make a call as to what they really mean in the current context. If they are succeeding yow would expect the figures to improve over time and we will only see the start of that in 12 months time and their business plan may allow for a decreasing loss over a couple of seasons until the group break even and make a profit.

If CCFC are lucky enough to get a new investor I would not expect us to initially make a profit but show decreasing losses eventually pushing into profit

As it stands though, this is a business that relies entirely on the goodwill of a single investor to survive. Isn't that the case? If he pulled out tomorrow, and/or asked for repayment of the other 8.5m he's owed, Wasps is finished. I don't wish the bloke ill, but what if he falls upon hard times for whatever reason, or dies. I can't see this as anything other than a horribly risky business to be lending money to. It seems to me that in essence the council have taken a punt that either Wasps can turn around very substantial operating losses by turning another loss-making business (ACL) into a cash cow, or that Richardson will continue to subsidise them.

CCFC are allegedly cash-flow neutral now - in other words they don't have to rely on any more handouts from SISU. On that basis wouldn't they actually be a lower risk than Wasps, if we were looking for someone to lend £14.4m to?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

In theory nothing is there to stop him taking his money but why would he do that? he is behind WASPS and they are running the show so infect he already has it.

I don't know, maybe he gets bored? Maybe he decides he doesn't want to put any more money in?

 

[albatross]

As it stands though, this is a business that relies entirely on the goodwill of a single investor to survive. Isn't that the case? If he pulled out tomorrow, and/or asked for repayment of the other 8.5m he's owed, Wasps is finished. I don't wish the bloke ill, but what if he falls upon hard times for whatever reason, or dies. I can't see this as anything other than a horribly risky business to be lending money to. It seems to me that in essence the council have taken a punt that either Wasps can turn around very substantial operating losses by turning another loss-making business (ACL) into a cash cow, or that Richardson will continue to subsidise them.

CCFC are allegedly cash-flow neutral now - in other words they don't have to rely on any more handouts from SISU. On that basis wouldn't they actually be a lower risk than Wasps, if we were looking for someone to lend £14.4m to?

I can see what you are saying but.... he is not likely to and is on the record that he is not calling it in (in the accounts). The accounts reflect business at Adams Park not at the Ricoh. ACL lost 400k when CCFC did not pay any rent. I think in their entire history ACL lost money only in 2 Yrs. som under the circumstances 400K loss is probably not a bad performance. Also It Is accepted that the Old ACL management did not use the Ricoh etc to its full potential., There is a new events guy in there so I would expect more things going on.

I think we will only get a proper picture when we see their next set of accounts.

With regards to CCFC they have not turned a profit for years , totally reliant on external funding and there is still considerable debt associated with the club. Otium should file the latest accounts this week so that will tell us if we are cash flow neutral. CCFC were a significant risk to ACL and with the current owners would not be a reliable anchor tenant , At least Thats what the judge said. That has now been offset as they have 2 tenants.

All I am saying is that its too early to judge how WASPS are doing ,not that they are doing great or failing. Its clear they will not want to be publishing too many sets of accounts lake the last set. Only time will tell if they are successful