Wasps owner Derek Richardson explains Coventry move and rejects "franchise" tag (8 Viewers)

[Grendel]

So much of the deal is public knowledge you have to wonder why people continue to spout rubbish on here.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-accounts-reveal-63m-8720201

So you admit you know fuck all just what the telegraph says?

Who owns the shares in Moonstone and why if that is the company in Valetta is it owned by another Maltese finance company - mgi? Can you confirm Richardson is the sole shareholder in that company?

Go on for once prove you know something please

 

---

[chiefdave]

Isn't that CT piece about the accounts before they took over ACL? How does that show they paid £1m off the loan or is it CT guesswork? Is there anything from the council that actually confirms the change of terms to the loan and any down payment?

 

[olderskyblue]

Isn't that CT piece about the accounts before they took over ACL? How does that show they paid £1m off the loan or is it CT guesswork? Is there anything from the council that actually confirms the change of terms to the loan and any down payment?

The latest accounts cover the period before Wasps took control of Ricoh Arena operating company for a total of £5.54million in November. As part of that deal, Wasps made an initial £1million down payment on a £14.4million loan to ACL from Coventry City Council.

Seems quite clear?

 

[Nick]

So where does the 250 year lease come into it? What did they pay for that

 

[lordsummerisle]

Seems quite clear?

Still CT guesswork, "commercial confidentiality" and all that.

 

[olderskyblue]

Still CT guesswork, "commercial confidentiality" and all that.

I expect to see "understands" in articles when it is unsubstantiated, this doesn't have that. Maybe Simon can confirm one way or the other?

 

[chiefdave]

Seems quite clear?

Not really, any enquiries about anything to do with the deal are met with 'confidential'. If you look at that CT piece that's not a quote so where have CT sourced that information from, its certainly not been made public by CCC.

And of course if that £1m was not, as some guessed, a payment for the additional 200 years on the lease what has been paid for that, surely its not been handed over for free or a peppercorn rent?

 

[Moff]

Very true. Knowledge helps. But many on here profess knowledge but clearly have none.

Dont be too hard on yourself sunshine, when you do get some knowledge about something I will be waiting with big congratulations. Stay strong!

 

[Intheknow]

Not really, any enquiries about anything to do with the deal are met with 'confidential'. If you look at that CT piece that's not a quote so where have CT sourced that information from, its certainly not been made public by CCC.

And of course if that £1m was not, as some guessed, a payment for the additional 200 years on the lease what has been paid for that, surely its not been handed over for free or a peppercorn rent?

I suspect that we might find out soon whether Les Reid was correct that the Council wrote off £1m of the facility granted to ACL or if he was correct that an extension of the lease over the Ricoh was given at no cost.

If I was a betting man, then I suspect that Les might look a bit stupid.

 

[Nick]

So it was given for free? What PR statement will it be?

 

[Intheknow]

So it was given for free? What PR statement will it be?

i wonder if one of my posts some time ago provides the answer.

 

[Nick]

Why not just answer?

 

[Moff]

I suspect that we might find out soon whether Les Reid was correct that the Council wrote off £1m of the facility granted to ACL or if he was correct that an extension of the lease over the Ricoh was given at no cost.

If I was a betting man, then I suspect that Les might look a bit stupid.

If you are truly 'In the Know' surely you know whether Les Reid will look stupid or not, as surely writing 'might' undermines the conviction of what you have written?

 

[Intheknow]

If you are truly 'In the Know' surely you know whether Les Reid will look stupid or not, as surely writing 'might' undermines the conviction of what you have written?

Poor old Les.

 

[Grendel]

Poor old Les.

Ah good why don't we visit the other thread now and explain what is going on regarding this bond - you know the one exclusively revealed by Les Reid a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Nick]

Poor old Les.

Looks like he was a couple of weeks ahead of the press with the last one? Not far off at all was he?

 

[torchomatic]

Pretty much spot on with the Bond story, wasn't he?

Poor old Les.

 

[oldfiver]

If you are truly 'In the Know' surely you know whether Les Reid will look stupid or not, as surely writing 'might' undermines the conviction of what you have written?

I am sure he is "In the know" because there always is a sting in the tail in his posts

Now why can that be?