They wouldn’t if a plan B didn’t include the Ricoh.
They wouldn’t if a plan B didn’t include the Ricoh.Why would wasps have any say in the plan b?
Probably the same people that will tell you Wasps are business geniuses for moving the club halfway across the country.
What do people expect? We all know the legals won't be dropped so should the club just bet everything on Wasps changing their mind?
The self appointed football finance expert Kieran Maguire has made the same claim that the club is £56m in debt. Frustrating as people will now quote him and it will be seen as fact.
He seems to struggle with the situation here, not sure why but errors in his statement have been pointed out to him before but he will never accept he has made a mistake.
Agreed. What annoys me is that Boddy & Fisher deny that in the media (there is only plan A the Ricoh) and some people swallow it hook line and sinker.It would be remiss of any director not to have other options
Agreed. What annoys me is that Boddy & Fisher deny that in the media (there is only plan A the Ricoh) and some people swallow it hook line and sinker.
It is clear too if push comes to shove that the EFL will allow a groundshare in the the reasonable hope and expectation a Ricoh deal can be made before too long, by which I mean up to 2 years, though most likely one.
Really appreciate your analysis OSB of the accounts.Frankly for an academic who lectures on football finance he has got a lot wrong from the Twitter account I have seen.
Might have been 56m losses for the group since sisu got here but the club in its current form is otium not sbsl. The old losses went with the administration in effect. But just so no one is surprised otium accounts will show much more not because otium has made massive losses since 2013 but because of clever and legal accountancy.
There are 45 m loans and interest not 39m. But 29m is locked into sbsl and not a liability of otium.
Otium is the club not sbsl that is just an investment vehicle or holding company. Sbsl doesn't own the efl share.
The rents are for the stadium and the academy.
Wages increased in part because of a league calculation on pension outside of the club's control. If the wages are 82 % of turnover then the interest charge can't be covered can it. We know that because it hasn't been paid it has been added to debt so hasn't cost the fans anything yet.
The 500k loan is a revolving facility and was this that was repaid not other loans. That facility has increased in size in each of the last three years.
Yes there is a contingent asset of 650k but is that enough when we know of Maddison sale to Leicester?
Apart from that it's fine .....
Really appreciate your analysis OSB of the accounts.
I have a question regarding the value of the club as an ongoing trading entity to SISU. My question relates to the rate of interest that the SISU charge to it's companies and despite the fact they do not receive any repayment of the accrued amount.......is this figure of value to SISU as a debt and are they able to offset this against the Corporation Tax bill for SISU overall?
Therefore, indirectly reducing their liability to HMRC
Hmm, silly thought (no need to shoot me down over it). Wonder if by refusing to deal with the club over the rent, are Wasps trying to distress Otium to a point where they can put in a silly bid for the club and beat SISU at their own game ? Some money back for investors would be better for Joy than having the club be dissolved with zero to show for it.
Could be at the moment which ever way you look the road for sisu seems blocked, Nuneaton ground, unavailable, as is Butts Park Arena and the EFL stipulation of having to play our home games within 6 miles of the city centre for example Ryton on Dunsmore is 5.9 miles from Broadgate so other than BPA I don’t know anywhere within that 6 mile boundary suitable.,But I’m certain sisu will have done their homework they ain’t daft. I think it’s still a case of who blinks firstHmm, silly thought (no need to shoot me down over it). Wonder if by refusing to deal with the club over the rent, are Wasps trying to distress Otium to a point where they can put in a silly bid for the club and beat SISU at their own game ? Some money back for investors would be better for Joy than having the club be dissolved with zero to show for it.
SISU have a charge over the club's most valuable asset which is Ryton, so noHmm, silly thought (no need to shoot me down over it). Wonder if by refusing to deal with the club over the rent, are Wasps trying to distress Otium to a point where they can put in a silly bid for the club and beat SISU at their own game ? Some money back for investors would be better for Joy than having the club be dissolved with zero to show for it.
People on social media seem upset that the club seem to be looking at other options than the Ricoh. Did they really expect them not to?
We don't know it has been left this late though?They’d be massively incompetent if they weren’t. The fact they’re leaving this late is pretty incompetent as it is.
We don't know it has been left this late though?
More worried about the plan b!Well then, we’ll all stop worrying about being kicked out the league.
Agreed. What annoys me is that Boddy & Fisher deny that in the media (there is only plan A the Ricoh) and some people swallow it hook line and sinker.
It is clear too if push comes to shove that the EFL will allow a groundshare in the the reasonable hope and expectation a Ricoh deal can be made before too long, by which I mean up to 2 years, though most likely one.
It is also obvious that piling nearly £2m interest on the club every year isn't sustainable, it is done to build debt on the books. What in your opinion is a realistic interest charge on Otium considering what has been put in?
Really appreciate your analysis OSB of the accounts.
I have a question regarding the value of the club as an ongoing trading entity to SISU. My question relates to the rate of interest that the SISU charge to it's companies and despite the fact they do not receive any repayment of the accrued amount.......is this figure of value to SISU as a debt and are they able to offset this against the Corporation Tax bill for SISU overall?
Therefore, indirectly reducing their liability to HMRC
SISU have a charge over the club's most valuable asset which is Ryton, so no
Yes sorry you're rightGoing to be pedantic fp sorryit is ARVO with the charge not SISU although everything points to SISU controlling ARVO
More worried about the plan b!
Isn't the Maddison money likely to be paid in instalments and could therefore be in more than 1 set of accounts? That will probably be the same for the McNulty fee.When did the Maddison cash go in?
Isn't the Maddison money likely to be paid in instalments and could therefore be in more than 1 set of accounts? That will probably be the same for the McNulty fee.
Surely only define payments are accounted, those contingent on appearances etc. won't show.How is that represented on the books because surely it’s a debt? Our spending seems to go in one lump and we surely pay that in instalments.
Surely only define payments are accounted, those contingent on appearances etc. won't show.
Ps there is a "contingent asset of fees due on player sales" of £650k in the report.
Leicester will be paying Norwich for Maddison in instalments over a couple of years so any money owed to us by Norwich will also be paid in instalments and not in a lump sum. I would expect, although I am not an accountant, that each instalment that we receive through the financial year is added together and included in player sales.The Madders sell on cash would all be due on sale though right?
On the offal report of the accounts they are now acknowledging that there is a plan B re the ground
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?