Wasps current finances & hope (4 Viewers)

[Astute]

They were in Wycombe not London.
They have been Called just Wasps for 135 years out of 150.
It was a good name change if they were never going back to London.
What's your point ?

Were?

So you now have doubts?

 

---

[italiahorse]

Dreamland? Me?

You are right. We have never owned the arena. And we have been in the shite since Richardson sold HR and it never got replaced by us.

Wasps.....or the other dodgy Richardson....piled debt onto the arena. So now they have to find over 2m a year just to cover interest payments. Then in 4 years they have to find another 35m. They are letting their best players go as they can't afford them. So they will be selling even less tickets.

Yet you make out all is well and in target.

So where is the money going to come from to pay the interest? Where is the 35m going to come from?

Oh yes they can carry on paying massive interest payments for 4 years and then release more bonds to pay off the old ones. And continue to find well over 2m to continue to pay the interest.

But they are miles away from their core fan base. They are not in the best place to make millions just to stand still. It looks like they falsified the accounts to make things look better. But even then it would have been another big loss.

Then you think it is a dreamland situation of SISU getting the arena. But they are next in line to be wrapped up in litigation.

I don't trust SISU with the arena. But it is the only hope we have. And I don't see any reason why they wouldn't look for a buyer once they have the arena.

Good luck

 

[italiahorse]

Were?

So you now have doubts?

That's before they moved from Wycombe.
Obviously reverting back to just Wasps makes them more transportable.

Saracens and Harlequins next ?

 

[Astute]

Good luck

Don't you think Wasps are in trouble?

 

[Astute]

That's before they moved from Wycombe.
Obviously reverting back to just Wasps makes them more transportable.

Saracens and Harlequins next ?

3 rugger clubs sharing the arena?

 

[Nick]

They were in Wycombe not London.
They have been Called just Wasps for 135 years out of 150.
It was a good name change if they were never going back to London.
What's your point ?

Did they change their name just before they moved.... Yes or no?

Hence you keep saying about it being CCFC is irrelevant.

 

[italiahorse]

Did they change their name just before they moved.... Yes or no?

Hence you keep saying about it being CCFC is irrelevant.

Of course they did but what’s your point?
If Coventry City dropped the Coventry when they move from Coventry they would not be Coventry.
I could relate to just Wasps as a lot of fans remember that name.
Could I relate to Singer Utd in Aberystwyth the answer is no.

 

[Moff]

The question you need to ask yourself is : with CCFC in L1L2 and Wasps gone what happens next ?
??

The leasehold goes back to the Council, and they need another leaseholder, preferably CCFC.

You keep peddling the horseshit about the freehold, but the freehold isn't for sale so why you keep alleging SISU would move the club to get the freehold is frankly laughable and just shows your ludicrous rambling.

 

[Moff]

No we need to piggy back off Wasps.

Yes what we want is an owner who are worse at filing accounts than SISU, and have their auditor quit as they falsified the accounts.

 

[Nick]

Of course they did but what’s your point?
If Coventry City dropped the Coventry when they move from Coventry they would not be Coventry.
I could relate to just Wasps as a lot of fans remember that name.
Could I relate to Singer Utd in Aberystwyth the answer is no.

Italia being a hypocrite part 10000000.

The point is that you are saying if the club moved it wouldn't be relatable based on the name, just after Wasps changed theirs before they moved....

 

[Moff]

That's before they moved from Wycombe.
Obviously reverting back to just Wasps makes them more transportable.

Saracens and Harlequins next ?

Please amuse me what are you suggesting Saracens and Harlequins are going to do next?
Your knowledge of Rugby could be written on the back of a postage stamp so please do tell what are you suggesting these teams are going to do.

 

[italiahorse]

The leasehold goes back to the Council, and they need another leaseholder, preferably CCFC.

You keep peddling the horseshit about the freehold, but the freehold isn't for sale so why you keep alleging SISU would move the club to get the freehold is frankly laughable and just shows your ludicrous rambling.

It’s not me saying we will own the stadium.

 

[italiahorse]

Yes what we want is an owner who are worse at filing accounts than SISU, and have their auditor quit as they falsified the accounts.

Worse ?
I can remember player embargo’s with Sisu. Contributory to our demise.
How have people forgot ?

 

[stupot07]

The one man PR show and wasps apologist.

Come on lads you know the rules...

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[stupot07]

Worse ?
I can remember player embargo’s with Sisu. Contributory to our demise.
How have people forgot ?

We only had an embargo because of fa rules about submitting accounts.. I can't remember our accounts ever being this later,, plus wasps have failed to pay players (we've never done that), and they tried to hoodwink the auditors but falisfying their accounts (nope we've never done that, either).

Sisu are bunch of c*nts, but wasps are no better. I hope they go pop.

I've got better things to do on this sunny day, so will leave you to trying to punch your way out of the proverbial paper bag.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[italiahorse]

Please amuse me what are you suggesting Saracens and Harlequins are going to do next?
Your knowledge of Rugby could be written on the back of a postage stamp so please do tell what are you suggesting these teams are going to do.

It was another jokey remark you were late too.

 

[italiahorse]

We only had an embargo because of fa rules about submitting accounts.. I can't remember our accounts ever being this later,, plus wasps have failed to pay players (we've never done that), and they tried to hoodwink the auditors but falisfying their accounts (nope we've never done that, either).

Sisu are bunch of c*nts, but wasps are no better. I hope they go pop.

I've got better things to do on this sunny day, so will leave you to trying to punch your way out of the proverbial paper bag.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Do you remember when the players and golden share appeared in the wrong set of accounts ? Mysteriously into a set of accounts that hadn’t just gone bust.
How people forget over time.

Failed to pay wages was reported in 2013 LOL
Talk about fake news followers.
Hard-up Wasps fail to pay players in the run-up to Christmas | Daily Mail Online

 

[Nick]

Was that falsifying accounts?

 

[Nick]

Do you remember when the players and golden share appeared in the wrong set of accounts ? Mysteriously into a set of accounts that hadn’t just gone bust.
How people forget over time.

Failed to pay wages was reported in 2013 LOL
Talk about fake news followers.
Hard-up Wasps fail to pay players in the run-up to Christmas | Daily Mail Online

You do realise they could have failed to pay players at different times don't you? What's an article from 2013 got to do with anything apart from showing it's not surprising?

Fake news.. You have been listening to the wasps employee it seems. Neither of you have actually addressed how or why things are fake news either.

The pr machine is stalling. The deflection to sisu / ccfc / Les reid isn't working, so much so it's embarrassing.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Do you remember when the players and golden share appeared in the wrong set of accounts ? Mysteriously into a set of accounts that hadn’t just gone bust.
How people forget over time.

...and even then, nobody said the evidence had been falsified.

Which kind of suggests it has to be particularly disturbing for such a statement to be made, no?

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

No they effectively have the stadium for 250 years, owe £35M on assets worth £60M.
They are moving in the right direction to become profitable and after only 2 full years.
Business wise It's remarkable how they've done so far.

If only Sisu had done exactly the same instead of trying to make a quick buck for themselves at the expense of CCC and Higgs.
Seems nothing what Wasps paid for the lease but Sisu said they wouldn't pay it.
Which is very confusing as they are now in court saying Wasps didn't pay enough.
They are taking the pi$$ or perhaps you can answer the logic here ?

They could ask £60 million for the rest of their lives it’s not worth it, i would question wether they are moving in the right way to be profitable they seem to have robbed peter to pay Paul with the bonds and will have to again. The only remarkable thing is that people have started to watch them.

They have a 250 year lease on a stadium that won’t be standing in 50 years the place is a money pit as they are already finding out

 

[chiefdave]

Wheres the evidence we would own it rather than rent it?

It would more than likely be a prop co op co arrangement the same as most other clubs who are said to own their grounds. Even Fisher has said that would be the arrangement if a new ground was built.

Of course the council could easily put restrictions in place. They discussed that in the past making it clear if CCFC ever owned the Ricoh steps would be taken to ensure they could not use it as security for future borrowing. They could also put in place a requirement for the club and stadium co to remain tied or anything else they felt like making a term of the long lease.

Says who ?

Says CCFC, ACL and the Sky Blue Trust. Plus I have had it confirmed via ACL staff members. Are you naive enough to think the matchday costs now are the same as they were prior to us leaving? Why do you think half the blocks are shut? Every one we open is an extra charge.

Also buy into some incomes rather than expect them for nothing.

That was suggested before by ACL, £24m for matchday revenues for the remainder of the 50 year lease. How much did Wasps pay for the whole thing on a 250 year lease?

We have Sisu in control just using us as a puppet.

Doesn't answer the question even if you ignore the fact they won't be here forever.

Then Sisu need to buy into them not just be expected to be given them.

Why shouldn't we get access to them. According to you a new naming rights deal can't be done until we agree a long term deal. If they are reliant on us signed up long term to get that sponsorship how are we not entitled to a share?

A indépendant valuation? Anyway as long as its the right side of £35M I guess its okay.

Given the revelation that Wasps were supplying falsified information to PWC how confident is anyone that the information they have supplied for the valuation is sound. Especially given the valuation seems to conveniently increase by just the amount needed every time there is a problem with achieving the bond requirement. Not to mention the reason Wasps ended up in Wycombe in the first place was when they overstated the value of a stadium they were using as security on borrowing and got found out.

Anyway you said CCC would lose £60m so are you agreeing with SISU that it was sold to Wasps massively under value?

So was Wasps a good option for the council ?

Not in the slightest. Best option would have been to run it properly from day one so ACL wasn't reliant on our rent. That way they would have had more scope to lower the rent but if they refused to do so and we left the stad co could keep running, as Lucas kept claiming it could, until the club had new owners.

When they didn't do that and got themselves in a mess then the council should have kept hold of it, minimised losses, and waited SISU out.

We wouldn't own it we would lease it. Are rent contribution would need to support it as before at the start.

Most clubs that talk about owning their stadium have a prop co op co setup. You're trying to create an issue out of nothing there.

Thats Sisu's fault for firstly buying the club and taking on the rent and secondly not trying to obtain it fairly (JR1).

You must be the only person in Coventry who still puts the blame totally on SISU.

They won't, when Sisu are finally gone the new owners will realise that you don't need to own the stadium with a good long term deal.

Or we will struggle to get new owners as CCC have given the stadium to a rugby club for the next 250 years.

Ask Sisu, they said they wanted too and thought the Wasps deal was too expensive. Well they did at the time but JR2 says they have now changed their minds.

Not really sure how that answers the question of how a future owner would build a new stadium. Seems to translate to you have no answer and are making shit up again.

 

[italiahorse]

They could ask £60 million for the rest of their lives it’s not worth it, i would question wether they are moving in the right way to be profitable they seem to have robbed peter to pay Paul with the bonds and will have to again. The only remarkable thing is that people have started to watch them.

They have a 250 year lease on a stadium that won’t be standing in 50 years the place is a money pit as they are already finding out

So why do CCFC want it ?

 

[italiahorse]

You do realise they could have failed to pay players at different times don't you? What's an article from 2013 got to do with anything apart from showing it's not surprising?

Fake news.. You have been listening to the wasps employee it seems. Neither of you have actually addressed how or why things are fake news either.

The pr machine is stalling. The deflection to sisu / ccfc / Les reid isn't working, so much so it's embarrassing.

Then pick them up on the evidence, don't just run with it.
I've shown the article they think was last year. You show me the article you are frothing over.

 

[italiahorse]

...and even then, nobody said the evidence had been falsified.

Which kind of suggests it has to be particularly disturbing for such a statement to be made, no?

Make an educated guess.
The lack of accounts that year due to administration would have given us the facts but as they didn't exist we will never know.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Will try to keep to the main points. But i will do it two sections and deal with the audit report first

The financial statements as presented and prepared on a going concern basis give a true and fair view of the Group situation at 30 June 2017, comply with the International Financial Reporting Standard, and the Companies Act. That is the opinion.

The part about the falsified documents and going concern is not the opinion but drawing the attention of anyone reading the financials to those matters

You would hope that having increased the audit fee over 6 fold that they have conducted a much more thorough audit for that fee. Now the reason that the fee went up it would be argued is the discovery of falsified audit evidence. That would increase the risk assessment for the audit as a whole from the initial assessment to a new higher level of assessment and investigation. That could easily mean revisiting areas previously signed off. That should in theory make the risk of other such errors, mistakes , falsifications in these financial statements being pretty low

So the falsified audit evidence. This is the damaging part of the whole audit report. It carries reputational damage, it carries damage to future plans. Given that it was in unaudited accounts that were never available then, it may seem strange, but no one has been misled that was relying on the financials (eg banks, creditors, potential customers etc.). That is important in terms of the likelihood of any regulatory action. But they(the other users of the accounts) have been alerted it happened and thats certainly not going to help Wasps. Not a good situation and given what they ended up having to do why didnt they just front up with the bond holders and get to the solution they created earlier? I can not will not find any way to condone falsified documents. But why did the other directors (especially)or the audit committee not know about this before the auditors came in?

Just a thought but do such comments by the auditors provide a chink of light for the SISU lawyers? "you cant totally be sure what they say is true look at what the auditors said" kind of thing

Anyway going concern, I know it makes a nice headline in a newspaper, but comments about relying on the support of the owners, but have assurances that are not contractual appears on many Company accounts including
Wasps
Otium Entertainment Group Limited
Sky Blue Sports & Leisure

Unsurprisingly, the general wording & gist is very similar in all three audit reports to the above. I have pointed it out before and that such assurances carry little weight in law. No one would give an open ended contractual commitment to fund unknown future funding. Which makes the clear statement of the risk by auditors and directors important to any one reading the accounts intending to do business with Wasps What the auditors are not saying is that Wasps Group are under risk of going out of business imminently. What is being said is that, all three of the above companies, rely on their owners to keep going. Something we all knew, and not in the scheme of things a sensational revelation

It is of course a weaker audit report than previous years that is not good. But the damaging part is the document falsification - but it is not really clear what actually went on - however if they get clean audits in future it will carry less weight until it is forgotten, and any future auditor has been put on alert

Few other points.

I still do not see why it took so long. The issues were clear and a substantial amount of audit work had already been done surely? Much of the work done electronically not wading through mountains of paper records. For the fee to be going up so much what were the other issues? I cant help thinking there had already been a client/auditor relationship breakdown but that is nothing more than my own opinion

I think if i had an audit client trying to pull the wool over my eyes like that i would resign the appointment too, but did they jump before pushed. Whilst the client shareholder hasnt been truthful we are told the high paid auditors & tax experts allowed a 4.1m mistake to slip through on the 2016 figures on something that is a relatively easy calculation that they would have to check

Companies House are unlikely to take out prosecutions. It will be fines to pay by the company and matter closed

As part of the deal revised with bond holders it reads to me like the shareholder, Derek Richardson, has agreed to make up any shortage on the interest deposit account. That is some sort of real commitment isnt it? not just a letter of intent? takes the pressure off having to pay the annual charge? Lowers the risk of default or not being a going concern

 

[Nick]

Then pick them up on the evidence, don't just run with it.
I've shown the article they think was last year. You show me the article you are frothing over.

What are you on about? People aren't talking about an article, they are talking about their own auditors saying they falsified evidence when questioned...

 

[chiefdave]

Anyway going concern, I know it makes a nice headline in a newspaper, but comments about relying on the support of the owners, but have assurances that are not contractual appears on many Company accounts including
Wasps
Otium Entertainment Group Limited
Sky Blue Sports & Leisure

The difference in my eyes is that Wasps owner has moved the club halfway across the country because he couldn't or wouldn't keep covering losses. He started taking money back out as quickly as he could when they got here. That doesn't give the impression of someone who will cover losses year after year.

I suspect, like SISU, he will continue to fund based on a belief he will at some point down the line get a return but the longer it goes on, and if he can' reduce those losses as SISU have with us, the more likely it becomes he will have enough.

Plus of course they have to refinance the bonds, the first issue had no trading history behind it, just Wasps projections. The next one could have years of losses on the books and be in a different economic environment where people are looking for a higher return.

Nothing to say they will be gone tomorrow but equally there's nothing in there that makes me certain they'll still be here in 10 years time.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

As part of the deal revised with bond holders it reads to me like the shareholder, Derek Richardson, has agreed to make up any shortage on the interest deposit account. That is some sort of real commitment isnt it? not just a letter of intent? takes the pressure off having to pay the annual charge? Lowers the risk of default or not being a going concern

My concern (if I cared ) would be the fact that the club was moved, because Richardson had tired of bailing them out. If he still has to do that, it doesn't bode well IMHO...

 

[Moff]

It was another jokey remark you were late too.

Apologies I was out having a life, you ought to try it instead of peddling your constant shite.

A jokey remark is meant to be amusing or funny. You failed as normal.

Like I said your rugby knowledge can be written on the back of a stamp.

 

[italiahorse]

It would more than likely be a prop co op co arrangement the same as most other clubs who are said to own their grounds. Even Fisher has said that would be the arrangement if a new ground was built.
So we would rent

Of course the council could easily put restrictions in place. They discussed that in the past making it clear if CCFC ever owned the Ricoh steps would be taken to ensure they could not use it as security for future borrowing. They could also put in place a requirement for the club and stadium co to remain tied or anything else they felt like making a term of the long lease.
Once bitten twice shy. In fact no one will deal with Sisu.

Says CCFC, ACL and the Sky Blue Trust. Plus I have had it confirmed via ACL staff members. Are you naive enough to think the matchday costs now are the same as they were prior to us leaving? Why do you think half the blocks are shut? Every one we open is an extra charge.
Where ? Unless you are referring to the Sky Blue Trust Q/A with Fisher and ACL in 2013

That was suggested before by ACL, £24m for matchday revenues for the remainder of the 50 year lease. How much did Wasps pay for the whole thing on a 250 year lease?
Again years ago, a corridor conversation and more than likely the starting point of a negotiation.

Doesn't answer the question even if you ignore the fact they won't be here forever.
It just seems like it and no sign of them going.

Why shouldn't we get access to them. According to you a new naming rights deal can't be done until we agree a long term deal. If they are reliant on us signed up long term to get that sponsorship how are we not entitled to a share?
Surely even you don't think we should be given them. No' if you want more access to incomes you need to buy into them.

Given the revelation that Wasps were supplying falsified information to PWC how confident is anyone that the information they have supplied for the valuation is sound. Especially given the valuation seems to conveniently increase by just the amount needed every time there is a problem with achieving the bond requirement. Not to mention the reason Wasps ended up in Wycombe in the first place was when they overstated the value of a stadium they were using as security on borrowing and got found out.
Didn't they come from QPR ground to Wycombe?

Anyway you said CCC would lose £60m so are you agreeing with SISU that it was sold to Wasps massively under value?
It wasn't sold. CCC still own the freehold.

Not in the slightest. Best option would have been to run it properly from day one so ACL wasn't reliant on our rent. That way they would have had more scope to lower the rent but if they refused to do so and we left the stad co could keep running, as Lucas kept claiming it could, until the club had new owners.
Again your timing is wrong. The choice was between Sisu getting it after ACL collapsed or Wasps getting it when they did.
In respect of running it properly it didn't help CCFC pulling out the project and then selling their half of ACL.
The risk transferred away from CCFC and the rent was set accordingly to on the evidence get ACL to break even.

When they didn't do that and got themselves in a mess then the council should have kept hold of it, minimised losses, and waited SISU out.
The problem is CCFC would have been out in Northampton while they waited for Sisu. Don't say they were here as they only returned because Wasps were coming.

Most clubs that talk about owning their stadium have a prop co op co setup. You're trying to create an issue out of nothing there.
But they still need to finance the property by renting it to the company.

You must be the only person in Coventry who still puts the blame totally on SISU.
I don't, I was referring to Sisu when they bought CCFC and the chances they have had to negotiate a fair deal.
I place most the blame on Pre Sisu management.
I understand why CCC did what they did (although they could have been less restrictive in early dealings) and i understand why Wasps came hear. I don't blame then though.

Or we will struggle to get new owners as CCC have given the stadium to a rugby club for the next 250 years.
New owners are out there if Sisu sell the club for what it's worth.

Not really sure how that answers the question of how a future owner would build a new stadium. Seems to translate to you have no answer and are making shit up again
They don't need to, its Sisu who said they are going to build one.
The argument here is that Sisu get the stadium freehold by being the only client once wasps go for next to nothing and then sell both the stadium and club for say £60M to get their money back. I'm saying that if Sisu just sell the team the new owners could build a stadium and it would be less than the £60M.



.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I do wonder what the reaction would be in a SISU thread if somebody popped up with 'ah, but Wasps...' as a retort.

Italia, the RFC of Wasps.

 

[italiahorse]

Apologies I was out having a life, you ought to try it instead of peddling your constant shite.

A jokey remark is meant to be amusing or funny. You failed as normal.

Like I said your rugby knowledge can be written on the back of a stamp.

It's the mobile internet. You don't need to be in your bedroom to post.
You thought it was a serious comment ? Wow
Depends how big your writing is not how big the stamp is.

 

[italiahorse]

What are you on about? People aren't talking about an article, they are talking about their own auditors saying they falsified evidence when questioned...

Keep up. I was replying on the comment Wasps were not paying players wages.

 

[Grendel]

Keep up. I was replying on the comment Wasps were not paying players wages.

The last time they didn’t pay actual wages was 2012 - why didn’t they pay them?