Speedies_Chips
Well-Known Member
Not so sure about that. I think you will find having a tenant signed up for 10 years counts as an asset for Wasps.
Not so sure about that. I think you will find having a tenant signed up for 10 years counts as an asset for Wasps.Theyve got a ten year tenancy. That’s an asset.
You can't buy a house in Canley for that!? Surely it's worth 7 figures.In the last financial statements well under £400k. However if sold for residential development it should be worth a fair bit more. Fisher suggested previously a figure under 2m for such a disposal I think
You can't buy a house in Canley for that!? Surely it's worth 7 figures.
Not so sure about that. I think you will find having a tenant signed up for 10 years counts as an asset for Wasps.
But football is the 'business' of the club. Hence the decisions based around the football side of it are the business decisions.
Of course you can argue their main aim is to reclaim their capital and interest to get their return on investment, but we've been down this road before. It didn't work. We ended up in L2 and that massively reduced our income on all levels - TV/prize money/gate receipts/transfer fees received. That affects the ability of the owners to take their money out.
The club have been more successful the last few years and developed some players they've been able to sell on for good fees. But that's not guaranteed to continue and the more they take in terms of interest the more it infringes the ability to keep on doing so. After we sold Dann etc we spent years relying on frees and kids and we made very little in terms of transfer fees on many of those players. They took the short term profits on the players and then ended up spending years having to cover losses. If we're not careful that could well be repeated again.
Well, how else do you expect to pay off the debt?So are you guys saying their aim is to break even, then anything above even goes to clear interest on debts and eventually debt itself?
Well, how else do you expect to pay off the debt?
So how much will it take in hard cash to get this lot to sell and piss off ?
A consortium of local business men.And replace them with whom ??
Is there any local businessmen with the capital to maintain a championship football club?A consortium of local business men.
Yeah, like Geoffrey Robinson, Joe Elliott, Mike McGinnity etc.A consortium of local business men.
A bit like football managers, it's not our role to nominate them.Is there any local businessmen with the capital to maintain a championship football club?
You can discuss football managers though and offer an opinion as to who would take the job. Multi millionaires local to Coventry are a bit rarerA bit like football managers, it's not our role to nominate them.
What's plainly obvious is that in an open market, you'd have more option than just a Hoffman-led version. We've never had the open market however - probably never will.
Let’s wait and see, you never know
They tend not to frequent my social circles, either.Multi millionaires local to Coventry are a bit rarer
Italia?What about Derek Richardson he owns a stadium in Cov and is using it in a manner that is not fit for purpose. Jump from one hedge fund to another but this one pretty much owns the Stadium albeit a really long lease.
Italia?
Multiple personasCould be it’s someone who posted on here as someone else that’s for sure
Variation on the theme. If one of our supporters suddenly became a billionaire and was happy to chuck money at the club you could buy Wasps, then buy CCFC and either flip Wasps to someone who actually wanted to own them or just make them run self sufficiently. Would be the quickest route to stadium ownership.What about Derek Richardson he owns a stadium in Cov and is using it in a manner that is not fit for purpose. Jump from one hedge fund to another but this one pretty much owns the Stadium albeit a really long lease.
Multiple personas
Is there anyone on here that isn't actually someone's burner account? Starting to question my own reality here.
What about Derek Richardson he owns a stadium in Cov and is using it in a manner that is not fit for purpose. Jump from one hedge fund to another but this one pretty much owns the Stadium albeit a really long lease.
So are you guys saying their aim is to break even, then anything above even goes to clear interest on debts and eventually debt itself?
sort of ...... it will be their choice whether to extract all or just part of surplus cash. It is the cash flow that is important not the profit on P&L account in this respect
90?Italia?
Not a chance for so many reasons. But a few......
- He is rich but not that rich - he would still have to pay for the purchase and fund the club
- "not fit for purpose" ? a sports stadium with events halls etc that is putting on sport and events?. It hasnt been successful because of the cost of the wages for professional sport there. The events side doesnt make big losses
- he would need to find millions to buy CCFC
- is he even interested in CCFC other than as a paying tenant
but most importantly
- CCFC isnt for sale right now to anyone because SISU have yet to max out the extraction of funds
- most CCFC fans would absolutely hate being owned by wasps
That last line is why I think the crowds wouldCan't argue with 99% of what you say because mostly I don't understand it.. Thank you though.
I know Richardson isn't actually that rich, what is it 60 million. (not including his debts). Pointless me saying the next bit because it won't happen anyway but we wouldn't be owned by Wasps. We would be owned by the man who owns Wasps, the sentiment would be the same maybe, but if the club was successful people would attend regardless in my opinion we are a very fickle bunch.
It isnt sisu's business though - not sure I can make it any clearer. They are fund managers with a responsibility to extract profits and gains for their investors. Ccfc is and always has been secondary to that.
I'll just concentrate on this.
SISU's business is to get gains for their investors. I know that CCFC is inconsequential to them apart from what it makes their investors. What I'm saying is that doing this plan with CCFC is in fact going to be detrimental to the aim of investors returns overall and IMO they'll end up having to put more in that they take out if they persist with it - in other words taking money from their investors rather than returning it.
They take out small amounts of interest now for their investors, but that affects the clubs ability (i.e. their investment) to maintain it's income streams and thus the ability to take further money out for their investors in future to get them their desired return. Before you know they're having to pump money back in rather than take it out because the club isn't earning enough money to be sustainable. They're only able to do it now because of player sales and they seem to be working on the assumption that'll continue - they should know from previous experience that's not always the case.
Perhaps they're thinking that by putting the club in such a poor financial situation before it was forced to bring through academy players, a couple of whom we managed to sell for a decent amount so if we do that again the outcome will be the same?
The obvious answer is to divest their holding, but they can't do that because they'll never sell if for enough to cover the capital and interest required to make the returns their investors desire. The only way they've got a hope in hells chance of getting the required return is PL promotion.
I'll just concentrate on this.
SISU's business is to get gains for their investors. I know that CCFC is inconsequential to them apart from what it makes their investors. What I'm saying is that doing this plan with CCFC is in fact going to be detrimental to the aim of investors returns overall and IMO they'll end up having to put more in that they take out if they persist with it - in other words taking money from their investors rather than returning it.
They take out small amounts of interest now for their investors, but that affects the clubs ability (i.e. their investment) to maintain it's income streams and thus the ability to take further money out for their investors in future to get them their desired return. Before you know they're having to pump money back in rather than take it out because the club isn't earning enough money to be sustainable. They're only able to do it now because of player sales and they seem to be working on the assumption that'll continue - they should know from previous experience that's not always the case.
Perhaps they're thinking that by putting the club in such a poor financial situation before it was forced to bring through academy players, a couple of whom we managed to sell for a decent amount so if we do that again the outcome will be the same?
The obvious answer is to divest their holding, but they can't do that because they'll never sell if for enough to cover the capital and interest required to make the returns their investors desire. The only way they've got a hope in hells chance of getting the required return is PL promotion.
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?