chiefdave
Well-Known Member
One that states on their website 'We have considerable experience of supporting management teams through crises"
Wasps current finances & hope (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
How does this happen? Has it improved as a business that much?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Obviously good but you have to wonder how much more it can go up when we're been told for the last couple of years business is booming and there's events on practically every day.
If you look at the valuation reports they always state they have been prepared solely based on information provided by Wasps. That's always seemed suspect to me to start off with but now we have the auditors saying they were given falsified information can we expect someone to take a closer look next time round?
A point their supporters seem to be ignoring is that when they kept telling us it was the Ricoh or bust it was because Richardson couldn't / wouldn't keep covering losses year on year. And of course he was quick to take his money out as soon as he could. So why is everyone now so sure he will happily cover the losses. Its not like he's bother about the rugby club, remember its a 'property development business with a rugby club on the side'. Seems to me they've moved halfway across the country to be in pretty much the same situation.
I can imagine some supporters would, although they issued them at peak excitement and for some the novelty will have worn off. Investors might be more wary. And of course we don't know if 6.5% but the time there is another bond issue will be attractive enough depending on how the economy in general is doing. You can't just keep issuing bonds every few years for a higher amount, at some point the house of cards collapses.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Sure that's fine, not like they've been found out for supplying falsified information.
speedie87
Well-Known Member
If you look at the valuation reports they always state they have been prepared solely based on information provided by Wasps. That's always seemed suspect to me to start off with but now we have the auditors saying they were given falsified information can we expect someone to take a closer look next time round?
As an auditor you don’t really do much work re valuations like this. If you.ve got a valuation from a independent 3rd party professional valuer you give it a quick sanity check and go with it. Interesting on the valuation report when they quote £60m value they do mention it’s a sport stadium licensed to be used by ccfc. So you,d think the value would go down without ccfc there. The value should be based on what further income that asset is going to generate
As an auditor you don’t really do much work re valuations like this. If you.ve got a valuation from a independent 3rd party professional valuer you give it a quick sanity check and go with it. Interesting on the valuation report when they quote £60m value they do mention it’s a sport stadium licensed to be used by ccfc. So you,d think the value would go down without ccfc there. The value should be based on what further income that asset is going to generate
duffer
Well-Known Member
Good analysis, speedie87, like it.
I know I'm probably the only person in the world with this opinion, and I know I keep banging on about it, but I'm still a long, long way from convinced about the 'independent' valuation of the Ricoh that Wasps are relying on.
If Wasps should fold up because of external pressures (and one of the biggest threats to any business is cashflow), then what's the true value of the Ricoh at that point? I can't see many buyers for a £60m stadium around these parts - we can't even scrape together funds for one at a quarter of the price. It still feels a lot like smoke and mirrors to me.
In purely commercial terms I'm glad I'm not a bondholder; the only investment that I can see as less reliable would be SISU's "let's make a fortune out of football" offering.
duffer
Well-Known Member
They've obviously run out of money to pay italia, or perhaps they think that he's not giving them good value any more.
speedie87
Well-Known Member
I too am sometimes a bit perplexed how much work goes into these valuations. As a numbers kind of guy the fact they are always nearly a nice round number makes me wonder how much actual work goes into them.
Another way to look at the valuation is to think if they have the right to use the stadium for the next 234 (or something like that) then how much money are they going to be able generate from that. In my mind when looking at is this way £60m doesn’t look so high
Another way to look at the valuation is to think if they have the right to use the stadium for the next 234 (or something like that) then how much money are they going to be able generate from that. In my mind when looking at is this way £60m doesn’t look so high
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
How is the Ricoh worth £60m? ACL and IEC turnover both down isn't it?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
But at the moment its losing money. Does it really matter how much it generates if year on year there's a loss?
The thing that makes no sense to me, besides the way the value conveniently goes up by just the amount Wasps need it to every time there's a valuation, is that its security for the bonds. By definition the security only comes in to play if its gone tits up for Wasps. At that point what use is a valuation based on the current tenants of the stadium?
Appreciate we had the 'no one will buy it' line before but if its basically gone bust can you se people queuing up to pay £60m?
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Telegraph front page news tomorrow should be “Wasps falsify accounts” followed by Saturday “come on city” make the disinterested take notice.
Of course there are no real journalistic principles in the telegraph any more. Any editor worth a thing would be all over this but they will just chase advertising money. Which is soon to run out.
Of course there are no real journalistic principles in the telegraph any more. Any editor worth a thing would be all over this but they will just chase advertising money. Which is soon to run out.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Wasps paid a tenth of that!
Nick
Administrator
It's quite funny reading their reactions, they are more bothered about people on here pointing out they have falsified accounts than the fact they have done it or that they had to try and mislead bond holders.
As long as they still get little plastic flags to wave I'm sure they don't mind. Must be a PR companies dream.
It's all well and good them slating here, it looks like half of their posters are the people pushing things that tried to on here and even then it's dead.
Should try and get their emails to tell them about my cousin needing a bank account for his millions.
It's like italia has brain washed them.
As long as they still get little plastic flags to wave I'm sure they don't mind. Must be a PR companies dream.
It's all well and good them slating here, it looks like half of their posters are the people pushing things that tried to on here and even then it's dead.
Should try and get their emails to tell them about my cousin needing a bank account for his millions.
It's like italia has brain washed them.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I think what you are saying, in a roundabout verbal sound off, is that they are not bothered.
In fact as reader of both forums it's laughable that the only people concerned are on here.
Yes it's difficult, but what do people expect from taking on a massive undertaking like they have.
No, early days in world dominance, but a great start and another year of progress.
Nick
Administrator
No, I'm saying is laughable that they would rather listen to a club employee like goode saying fake news than the actual accounts.
Again, you have been saying it's just a technical hitch when it clearly wasn't. You focus on my post, that way you can ignore the fact you were wrong..again.
Like you, none of them seem to even want to acknowledge that they were trying to cook the books and give false information when pulled on it to auditors.
Again, you have been saying it's just a technical hitch when it clearly wasn't. You focus on my post, that way you can ignore the fact you were wrong..again.
Like you, none of them seem to even want to acknowledge that they were trying to cook the books and give false information when pulled on it to auditors.
Last edited:
duffer
Well-Known Member
I think what you are saying, in a roundabout verbal sound off, is that they are not bothered.
In fact as reader of both forums it's laughable that the only people concerned are on here.
Yes it's difficult, but what do people expect from taking on a massive undertaking like they have.
No, early days in world dominance, but a great start and another year of progress.
Bugger, it looks like someone at Wasps found 50p to stick in the meter.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Their site is laughable. If it is true that they're no different from other clubs then English rugby is completely fucked. Same as before but with a £30m debt hanging over them while still making a loss and gates dropping.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Looks like it's blown up in their face now!
Nick
Administrator
Ha I spotted the auto correct and changed it.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I think what you are saying, in a roundabout verbal sound off, is that they are not bothered.
In fact as reader of both forums it's laughable that the only people concerned are on here.
Yes it's difficult, but what do people expect from taking on a massive undertaking like they have.
No, early days in world dominance, but a great start and another year of progress.
In truth I find it a little odd that there are so few people holding Wasps up to scrutiny.
Again, imagine the reaction on the CET and here if our owners got pulled up by the auditors for falsifying statements.
It's not 'difficult' to represent a true picture to the auditors and the bond-holders, but it is damned inconvenient if the truth shows that everything isn't as healthy as you've been pretending.
They've been caught out, good and proper, Their solution seems to be to change auditors, Perhaps they are hoping the next lot are a bit less diligent in their checks or a bit more flexible with the truth...
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Why are you bothered?
It's all guesswork based on the best route to Wasps demise.
Surely Sisu is our problem.
Nick
Administrator
It's not guess work is it?
The only guess work seems to be coming from you, desperate at best again.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We know they've tried falsifying information and got caught but are you now saying the accounts are all guesswork?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think what you are saying, in a roundabout verbal sound off, is that they are not bothered.
In fact as reader of both forums it's laughable that the only people concerned are on here.
Yes it's difficult, but what do people expect from taking on a massive undertaking like they have.
No, early days in world dominance, but a great start and another year of progress.
Looks like the bond holders are concerned doesn’t it?
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Now I have something in the back on my head that keeps tellingly me the temporary training grounds that was set up at Broadstreet and all the extra portacabins etc are only temporary and when receiving permission from the controlling council to put them on the site that they could only be there for a maximum of two years.
Don't know whether this is still the case but I am sure some sleuths could dig this up.
Don't know whether this is still the case but I am sure some sleuths could dig this up.
westofrayne
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the 'idiots' guide, it really helps.
Couple of comments:
1. Value of Ricoh - increased by £11.5m and is now worth £60m - Interesting how this can happen to a stadium that has foundation issues, and has not real maintenance since being built. Are they valuing the land against potential housing stock land? or is there something in the pipeline that we don'r know about. An £11.5m increase seems questionable. If the Stadium hadn't suddenly increased in value where would they be then?
2. Stadium sponsorship - Has a new sponsor been agreed? I though the current deal was up but they were having issues trying to find a sponsor, last I heard JLR were the preferred option for them, but they are not doing so well at the moment. Or have i missed the announcement?
speedie87
Well-Known Member
2. Stadium sponsorship - Has a new sponsor been agreed? I though the current deal was up but they were having issues trying to find a sponsor, last I heard JLR were the preferred option for them, but they are not doing so well at the moment. Or have i missed the announcement?[/QUOTE]
Accounts say the deal with ricoh was extended for 2 years. Not sure when that two years expires.
Accounts say the deal with ricoh was extended for 2 years. Not sure when that two years expires.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'm bothered because I've got some sort of a moral compass. Wasps failing here would be a massive poke in the eye for franchise sport.
Also, Wasps moving out is probably our best hope of somehow obtaining the stadium that was built for us.
What you're seeing here is a company with rather loose ethics following very dubious financial practices. I appreciate that if you make money out of it yourself, you might be prepared to overlook this and even champion them out of selfish self interest. Some of us have higher standards. Hope this explains.
Sub
Well-Known Member
dont know if this has been posted already but
https://coventryobserver.co.uk/news...auditors-in-new-accounts-as-bond-price-falls/
WASPS rugby club’s auditors are uncertain about its future amid ongoing financial difficulties and “falsified” evidence, newly published accounts show – and the price for Wasps bonds propping up the club has fallen today.
Independent auditors state there is “material uncertainty” over whether Wasps can continue as a “going concern”.
It comes as Sky News reported this morning that one of the ‘big four’ auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), has subsequently resigned as independent auditors to the Wasps group, following the group’s previously reported accounting irregularities.
The accounts for the year up to June last year – published today on Wasps website but still marked as ‘Overdue’ on Companies House website – record operating losses of £1.4million, down from £6.2million.
Auditors PwC provided a ‘Material Uncertainty Relating to Going Concern’ statement accompanying the accounts, dated today, which states: “The directors’ financial forecasts for the 15 months from the date of signing the financial statements show that the group is dependent on continued financial support from its shareholder to remain within its committed facilities and to meet the retail bond covenants.
“There can be no certainty that this support will continue. This condition indicates the existence of a material uncertainty, which may cast significant doubt about the group and the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
“The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the group and company were unable to continue as a going concern.”
As we have reported, the accounts for Wasps Finance plc – which administers Wasps’ bond scheme – were due to be filed on December 31, and Companies House took enforcement action because of their lateness, a criminal offence.
We recently reported that five Wasps companies’ accounts were overdue after March, including for Wasps Holdings Limited – which runs the rugby club.
The bond scheme was set up in 2015 to transfer the Wasps group’s £35million debts into bonds. Anonymous people and organisations bought the bonds.
They are due to receive 6.5 per cent annual interest on the bonds, and get their money back in 2022.
The bonds can also be bought and sold on the London Stock Exchange.
The bond price fell to 87p in the pound this afternoon – from 102p on March 26 – meaning there is a heightened risk that any purchaser of the bonds would not get their money back.
As we have reported, Wasps had informed bondholders ahead of a meeting in January that it had broken a ‘covenant’ pledge to them – relating to the ability to pay back interest to bondholders of £2.2million a year.
It followed an accountancy ‘error’ found by auditors relating to £1.1million payment by shareholder Derek Richardson.
The auditors use damning language in the accounts published today, concerning “falsified” evidence.
Its ‘Material Uncertainty Relating to Going Concern’ statement adds: “The group and company are financed by a retail bond issued by Wasps Finance Plc which contains financial covenants based on the financial performance of the group.
“During the year, the group failed to meet one of these covenants following an audit adjustment which resulted from a capital contribution from the group’s shareholder being incorrectly treated as revenue based on evidence which was found to have been falsified following override of certain management controls.
“This covenant breach was subsequently waived and the covenant amended to allow shareholder contributions to be included in the covenant circulation.”
Wasps say they will strengthen the robustness of the Group’s reporting and accounting procedures.
Today’s accounts also reiterate the bonds are secured against the Ricoh Arena, which a recent valuation estimated to be worth £60million, £12million more than previously.
It is despite cracks recently been discovered in the stadium’s structure, attributed to “ground settlement”. Further covenants relate to the Ricoh’s value.
We have reported former London Wasps’ ongoing annual losses since moving to the city from Wycombe after purchasing the Ricoh Arena company on a huge 250-year lease from Coventry City Council and the Alan Edward Higgs Trust in 2014.
Today’s accounts show the pattern continues of rising revenue, but high costs eating into revenue to produce negative bottom-line figures.
We have approached Wasps for comment.
UPDATE: Wasps have now issued the following statement via a recently hired PR company, Tulchan Communications Group, based in London: “This was an isolated incident, entirely at odds with our policy of maintaining the highest standards of governance. The matter has been addressed directly and as we announced in December, a number of measures have been put in place to strengthen the robustness of the Group’s reporting and accounting procedures.”
This evening, we invited a further Wasps response to the auditors’ notion that evidence was ‘falsified’, and the national report that PwC has resigned as auditor to Wasps.
The PR company told us no further statement will be issued regarding the ‘falsified’ evidence.
It provided a statement, which it issued today to the Stock Exchange, confirming Wasps’ intention to employ new auditors Mazars for the following year’s accounts, “subject to completion of Mazars’ new client procedures”.
https://coventryobserver.co.uk/news...auditors-in-new-accounts-as-bond-price-falls/
WASPS rugby club’s auditors are uncertain about its future amid ongoing financial difficulties and “falsified” evidence, newly published accounts show – and the price for Wasps bonds propping up the club has fallen today.
Independent auditors state there is “material uncertainty” over whether Wasps can continue as a “going concern”.
It comes as Sky News reported this morning that one of the ‘big four’ auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), has subsequently resigned as independent auditors to the Wasps group, following the group’s previously reported accounting irregularities.
The accounts for the year up to June last year – published today on Wasps website but still marked as ‘Overdue’ on Companies House website – record operating losses of £1.4million, down from £6.2million.
Auditors PwC provided a ‘Material Uncertainty Relating to Going Concern’ statement accompanying the accounts, dated today, which states: “The directors’ financial forecasts for the 15 months from the date of signing the financial statements show that the group is dependent on continued financial support from its shareholder to remain within its committed facilities and to meet the retail bond covenants.
“There can be no certainty that this support will continue. This condition indicates the existence of a material uncertainty, which may cast significant doubt about the group and the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
“The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the group and company were unable to continue as a going concern.”
As we have reported, the accounts for Wasps Finance plc – which administers Wasps’ bond scheme – were due to be filed on December 31, and Companies House took enforcement action because of their lateness, a criminal offence.
We recently reported that five Wasps companies’ accounts were overdue after March, including for Wasps Holdings Limited – which runs the rugby club.
The bond scheme was set up in 2015 to transfer the Wasps group’s £35million debts into bonds. Anonymous people and organisations bought the bonds.
They are due to receive 6.5 per cent annual interest on the bonds, and get their money back in 2022.
The bonds can also be bought and sold on the London Stock Exchange.
The bond price fell to 87p in the pound this afternoon – from 102p on March 26 – meaning there is a heightened risk that any purchaser of the bonds would not get their money back.
As we have reported, Wasps had informed bondholders ahead of a meeting in January that it had broken a ‘covenant’ pledge to them – relating to the ability to pay back interest to bondholders of £2.2million a year.
It followed an accountancy ‘error’ found by auditors relating to £1.1million payment by shareholder Derek Richardson.
The auditors use damning language in the accounts published today, concerning “falsified” evidence.
Its ‘Material Uncertainty Relating to Going Concern’ statement adds: “The group and company are financed by a retail bond issued by Wasps Finance Plc which contains financial covenants based on the financial performance of the group.
“During the year, the group failed to meet one of these covenants following an audit adjustment which resulted from a capital contribution from the group’s shareholder being incorrectly treated as revenue based on evidence which was found to have been falsified following override of certain management controls.
“This covenant breach was subsequently waived and the covenant amended to allow shareholder contributions to be included in the covenant circulation.”
Wasps say they will strengthen the robustness of the Group’s reporting and accounting procedures.
Today’s accounts also reiterate the bonds are secured against the Ricoh Arena, which a recent valuation estimated to be worth £60million, £12million more than previously.
It is despite cracks recently been discovered in the stadium’s structure, attributed to “ground settlement”. Further covenants relate to the Ricoh’s value.
We have reported former London Wasps’ ongoing annual losses since moving to the city from Wycombe after purchasing the Ricoh Arena company on a huge 250-year lease from Coventry City Council and the Alan Edward Higgs Trust in 2014.
Today’s accounts show the pattern continues of rising revenue, but high costs eating into revenue to produce negative bottom-line figures.
We have approached Wasps for comment.
UPDATE: Wasps have now issued the following statement via a recently hired PR company, Tulchan Communications Group, based in London: “This was an isolated incident, entirely at odds with our policy of maintaining the highest standards of governance. The matter has been addressed directly and as we announced in December, a number of measures have been put in place to strengthen the robustness of the Group’s reporting and accounting procedures.”
This evening, we invited a further Wasps response to the auditors’ notion that evidence was ‘falsified’, and the national report that PwC has resigned as auditor to Wasps.
The PR company told us no further statement will be issued regarding the ‘falsified’ evidence.
It provided a statement, which it issued today to the Stock Exchange, confirming Wasps’ intention to employ new auditors Mazars for the following year’s accounts, “subject to completion of Mazars’ new client procedures”.
Astute
Well-Known Member
But there is no surprise that there has hardly been any scrutiny. Most were more interested in the politics of them getting the arena than anything else.
When I went through the numbers I couldn't see how it could be viable. But I was wrong on one thing. I thought it was next year it would all go tits up.
Owning your own stadium is not as important as some believe. Yes you have the security of having somewhere to play. But the upkeep isn't cheap. And once the bonds were issued and Richardson took 10m out I could only see one outcome. Paying over 2m just to stand still was going ti be difficult. Their original supporters were going to drift away. Thise of us that live 100 miles or more away know how difficult and expensive it can be. So to get new support they would have to put an excellent product on the pitch and hope for the best. The exact reason what put us in this position ourselves.
So how much of the 10m that he took out frim the bonds issue will be put back in before he gives up?
I feel sorry for their original supporters. But the rest of those involved deserve everuthing they got. This includes the bond holders who should have taken everything into account.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I know from talking to our accounts dept that when they’re doing credit checks on new customers if they check their accounts on companies house and the books are loaded with intangible assets it’s rare that they get account facilities. Sounds very similar.
speedie87
Well-Known Member
The ricoh is classed as a tangible rather an intangible asset, is being recorded at fair value rather than at cost, which is perfectly allowed within accounting rules .
Intangible are things like goodwill, patents, development or software costs which are much harder to value. Goodwill is literally a value attached to a business when purchased for it basically having a good name which adds value, over an above its actual assets.
Intangible are things like goodwill, patents, development or software costs which are much harder to value. Goodwill is literally a value attached to a business when purchased for it basically having a good name which adds value, over an above its actual assets.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
According a Wasps fan, they are underplaying the accounts because if they reported a profitable operation it would strengthen SISU's case.
It's like listening to the shit Italia comes up with.
Christ almighty. Then again, false accounting and fraud is right up their street.