Wasps current finances & hope (5 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Moff

Moff

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I wouldn’t like it too much. Sisu could make a housing estate and some on here would be happy is straight from the Italia world of deflection
Click to expand...

Its more the fact Italia took the time to argue his point rather than offer soundbites. There's a lot he and I disagree on, but I would rather have a more reasoned debate with him than the usual one liners.
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Moff said:
Whilst we don't agree on all points, I have liked your post as you have written a decent well reasoned reply, and whilst we may differ on some of it, I prefer having a more balanced debate with you.

In light of my post, I think you know I would prefer Wasps not to be here, and the CCFC debate re the stadium is a further discussion, but I feel Rugby is heading for a real mess and the signs have been there for a while. Wages are spiralling, and English teams are struggling to keep up with European Rivals, meaning further pressure to recruit better and more expensive players. All this whilst revenues have fairly levelled and there isn't a bottomless pot of cash for clubs to call on. Many clubs are struggling, and I know Wasps have tried to increase their revenue streams with the stadium etc, but I suspect their attendances are below what they expected and their liabilities are higher. That though is my personal opinion. They are one of many that are feeling the pinch.

What I do know is that many Premiership Rugby clubs are struggling, whilst those that try to join the elite are having to invest huge sums of money, eg) Bristol, whilst teams like London Irish say this is unsustainable, which using London Welsh as an example is pretty nailed on.

The vast finances involved in the game now for the players is crippling the clubs, and even well run teams like Northampton are struggling to keep up. The Welsh regions were all on the precipice recently until the WRU invested further sums, and days of huge signings like the Ospreys had are a thing of the past, they are all having to cut their cloth accordingly. Looking at the Ospreys squad now compared to ten years ago is sobering. This same scenario is coming to bite the English teams and it isn't going to end well unless someone gets a grip.
Click to expand...

Good analysis, Rugby is definitely in trouble & do I give a shit, absolutely not.
 
D

djbooth

Well-Known Member
What is interesting is last season the total attendance for wasps was around 240k and this year is 170k. There are a few games left with the play offs. When I looked at figures pre Rioch the numbers were around 150k.
 
speedie87

speedie87

Well-Known Member
Sky news reporting Wasps will no longer be using pwc as their auditors.

I would guess they fell out over the accouting treatment of the cash introduced that lead to the bond covenant issue
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Is it a good sign if your auditors want out?

Maybe the delay for the accounts, they didn't want to sign them off?

Just a technical hitch though I'm sure...
 
Last edited:
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
speedie87 said:
Sky news reporting Wasps will no longer be using pwc as their auditors.

I would guess they fell out over the accouting treatment of the cash introduced that lead to the bond covenant issue
Click to expand...
Pwc are hardly known as the most impartial auditors either based on other stories of companies hiding financial problems!
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
What I don't get is they must know the cut off date for making an injection .
Seems very negligent to have overlooked that or a reluctance on Richardsons part .
Or some motive?
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Is it a good sign if your auditors want out?

Maybe the delay for the accounts, they didn't want to sign them off?

Just a technical hitch though I'm sure...
Click to expand...

We should find out!

The Companies Act 2006 imposes obligations both on an outgoing auditor and on the company it is ceasing to audit, to ensure that information about the auditor's departure (and the reasons for it) is given to the company's shareholders and to the appropriate authorities. These provisions came into force in April 2008, and it soon emerged that there was unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication in the notification requirements.

In November 2009, the Government consulted on changes. It has taken a while, but simplified requirements will apply where an auditor leaves office in relation to a financial year beginning on or after 1 October 2015. The changes will be particularly useful in the context of company acquisitions.

Firstly, the company will no longer be required to notify Companies House where the auditor resigns or is removed from office by shareholder resolution. This makes sense, as there is no requirement to inform Companies House of the appointment of an auditor.

The company must inform the relevant audit authority if the auditor ceases to hold office before the end of his term of office. For a listed company, the relevant authority is the Financial Reporting Council and for unlisted companies (which in the context of all these changes includes AIM companies), the relevant authority is the ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) or other accountancy body with which the auditor is registered. However, under the new rules, the company will no longer need to notify the relevant audit authority if it reasonably believes that the auditor's reasons for leaving before the end of his term of office are all exempt reasons.

"Exempt reasons" are:

  • the auditor is ceasing to practice as an auditor
  • the company is exempt from the requirement to be audited
  • the company is being wound up under an insolvency procedure
  • the company is a subsidiary undertaking of a UK parent company and its new auditor is auditing the group accounts and the individual accounts of other UK subsidiary undertakings included in the consolidation
So where a company is acquired by another company, it will no longer need to notify the relevant audit authority if it asks its existing auditors to resign and appoints the acquiring company's auditors instead.

Where the audit authority must be notified, the company will have a longer period in which to do this: 28 days from the auditor ceasing to hold office.

The outgoing auditor is required to send the company a statement relating to the reasons for his departure and related information. Under the new rules, the auditor of a listed company will always be required to send such a statement, but one will not need to be sent to an unlisted company if (i) the auditor's term of office has come to an end or (ii) his reasons for leaving before the end of his term of office are all exempt reasons as described above and there is no other information the auditor thinks should be brought to the attention of the company's shareholders or creditors.

In general, this will mean that an auditor resigning as a result of a company acquisition will not need to send a statement to the company along with his resignation letter.

Where the outgoing auditor is required to send a statement to the company, he must also send a copy to the relevant audit authority and to Companies House. Under the new rules, he will not need to send a copy to Companies House unless the company is listed or, in the case of an unlisted company, his statement indicates matters that he thinks should be brought to the attention of the company's shareholders or creditors.

The changes do not substantially affect the rights of an outgoing auditor to require a general meeting to be called and the obligation on the company to circulate the auditor's statement (if it is a listed company or, in the case of an unlisted company, if the statement indicates matters that the auditor thinks should be brought to the attention of the company's shareholders or creditors).
 
C

crowsnest

Well-Known Member
Accounts have been published (on wasps bonds website)
Bond price has dropped to 90.7 on last trade.

Also in the accounts it says Ricoh deal has been extended for 2 years, bad news for land rover?
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
crowsnest said:
Accounts have been published (on wasps bonds website)
Bond price has dropped to 90.7 on last trade.

Also in the accounts it says Ricoh deal has been extended for 2 years, bad news for land rover?
Click to expand...

They've not actually published it, they've said it'll go on their website shortly and provided a link, no accounts though.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
crowsnest said:
Accounts have been published (on wasps bonds website)
Click to expand...
In forming our opinion on the financial statements, which is not modified, we have considered the adequacy of the disclosure made in note 3.2 to the financial statements concerning the company’s ability to continue as a going concern and the uncertainty regarding the ongoing support of the company’s shareholder. This condition indicates the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern
Click to expand...
That can't be good.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
forecasts show that the Group is dependent upon the financial support of its shareholder to remain within its committed lending facilities, and to meet the financial covenants associated with the Retail Bond.
Click to expand...
The auditors were also presented with evidence which their testing revealed to have been falsified.
Click to expand...
If anything kills them it will be heaping debt on the Ricoh the minute they walked through the door.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
So from a quick glance on what they claim was an exceptionally good year on and off the field they've still lost £3.7m, failed to meet the bond covenants and (reading between the lines) had PWC refuse to sign off on the accounts.

Very handily for them despite all this the value of the Ricoh increased £11.5m. Hope none of that falsified information they gave to PWC also went to the people conducting the valuation.

Notice that Wasps ticket revenues are bundled in as sports revenue so you can't see if they've actually taken more or not.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Found that bit now.

Wasps tried to give the auditors falsified evidence.... Then the auditors fuck them off.

falsified.JPG

That doesn't look good, isn't that borderline fraudulent?
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
I'm sure it's all good though right Italia, right?

giphy.gif
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
NorthernWisdom said:
Now... I'm no expert (and await OSB with interest ;)) but I'm not aware of 'falsified' being used overly frequently in such things. Which surely makes it kind of... bad?
Click to expand...

It reads like they actively tried to mislead the auditor when they picked up on it. It sounds very bad as that means they tried to push falsified accounts through to mislead bond holders surely?

"falsified" doesn't read as a mistake.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
The questions that spring to mind are:

How much more can be generated by Wasps and the Ricoh? We keep being told business is booming, crowds are bigger than ever etc yet they're still losing money. What happens if and when either Wasps or the Ricoh have a bad year?

Looks like without the owner putting his hand in his pocket they will struggle to make the interest payments let alone repay the capital. Won't that make it harder to refinance and essentially lead to the debt getting bigger on every refinancing until the owner pulls the plug or they are unable to refinance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top