Grendel
Well-Known Member
Not our business? You've spent more time on here talking about this bond than any contributions to any other subject - other than passionately defending wasps fans who slag off the club on social media.
The plan is almost certainly to refinance, perhaps another bond issue or perhaps something like like a mortgage or could they float on the stock exchange?
The simple fact of the matter is they won't be able to repay the money in 7 years time without doing that but that shouldn't be a problem as long as things go reasonably.
Honestly though it's not really any of our business it seems strange to be insisting the cet probe further into it at a time when our financials are so so much more precarious than theirs. The only people who should care are wasps fans and those who have chosen to take the small risk for 6.5% interest per year.
Have the cet said that?Whats there to investigate? if you want to know how wasps will have 35mill to give back in 7 years the answer is they won't, they will have to refinance, obviously they will hope things will be better and they will be well established and they will be able to borrow less than the 35million and at a better rate than 6.5%
Not our business? You've spent more time on here talking about this bond than any contributions to any other subject - other than passionately defending wasps fans who slag off the club on social media.
But doesnt this blow the arguement of the 'poor little charity and taxpayer' being ripped off by an evil hedgehund?The fact is that Wasps have managed to get the stadium for less than half its value. Sisu could have had that deal if they'd simply been honest, honourable and decent. As they say - end of.
But doesnt this blow the arguement of the 'poor little charity and taxpayer' being ripped off by an evil hedgehund?
But doesnt this blow the arguement of the 'poor little charity and taxpayer' being ripped off by an evil hedgehund?
How do you work out that they didn't have the money to fund the move?
Inside knowledge?
They have done the same as the Glazers at Man u. They never had the money to buy them so they borrowed money against the club which 10 years on still leaves them nearly 400 mill in debt.How do you work out that they didn't have the money to fund the move? Inside knowledge?
They have done the same as the Glazers at Man u. They never had the money to buy them so they borrowed money against the club which 10 years on still leaves them nearly 400 mill in debt.
Wasps are no Man u, so i expect plenty of pain for them in the coming years.
Yeah it's all a bit of a paradox really.
Couldn't actually afford to buy ACL until they'd actually bought ACL.
Laughable. United were debt free before the Glazers. The majority of the Bond recycles existing debt at an appropriate coupon. The instruments bearing the Glazer debt bore a far higher interest rate.
Wasps seem to be getting criticised for structuring a purchase on the same lines as you and I buy a house.
Laughable. United were debt free before the Glazers. The majority of the Bond recycles existing debt at an appropriate coupon. The instruments bearing the Glazer debt bore a far higher interest rate.
Wasps seem to be getting criticised for structuring a purchase on the same lines as you and I buy a house.
Don't you? When I got my mortgage I made out I was loaded. Ignoring the fact I need to pay it back. I've got a fancy car on finance, I get all my stuff from the catalogue. I'm rich as anything in my nice car and house and clothes.When we borrow money though we don't claim to be rich.
Anyone who likens the bond issue to a house purchase hasn't got a clue about either one or the other. You wouldn't be able to get a mortgage to buy a house if you showed that you consistently were in debt and relied on your father-in-law to bail you out every few years. However, you might be able to borrow money from all of your mates to make ends meet for a while, on the basis that this time next year we'll be millionaires Rodney.
I'm not criticising Wasps for what they've done; it's a a smart move from their owner to get some of his cash out of a dicey business and protect themselves against the risk of the Council being obliged to call in the loan. However to ignore the fact that they've consistently posted operating losses, and will now have to pay back even more debt before they can even start to get close to realising profits, is avoiding the obvious.
Don't you? When I got my mortgage I made out I was loaded. Ignoring the fact I need to pay it back. I've got a fancy car on finance, I get all my stuff from the catalogue. I'm rich as anything in my nice car and house and clothes.
Just a shame I don't earn enough to pay it back, thankfully credit cards help.
The ability to pay a mortgage is based on projected income and, for the Bank, the lend is based on ability to cover risk with asset value. And the Bond.....
The ability to pay a mortgage is based on projected income and, for the Bank, the lend is based on ability to cover risk with asset value. And the Bond.....
That's bullshit I'm afraid
Really. A Bank looks to borrower's earnings to meet future mortgage repayments. It lends less than 100% of asset value as a cushion so as to cover payment default.
Having read the Prospectus there is an asset/debt ratio. So there is the cushion. And the investors look at future earnings to judge whether the interest payments can be met.
So the bullshit? And a Bond has a fixed interest rate. Mortgages don't for the full term.
Yes the comment on asset value is crap. Do you own a business? I do I have half share in a company that employs over 20 people. The banks will not consider asset values on a loan at all. They will consider your ability to meet payments. The asset value of the company was considerably more than the bank would loan.
What is your asset? Presumably not goodwill? Were you looking for a cash flow lend?
Perception of goodwill was a factor actually. The purpose was actually an extension to the building if you must know. The banks ultimate concern was based on ability to pay the loan that was the sole interest and it was very risk adverse. Despite being with said bank for many years and consistently making a profit the experience was certainly interesting.
What business do you own? You clearly have experience as well.
Yes the comment on asset value is crap. Do you own a business? I do I have half share in a company that employs over 20 people. The banks will not consider asset values on a loan at all. They will consider your ability to meet payments. The asset value of the company was considerably more than the bank would loan.
i was only responding to your bullshit comment. Which you have had the courtesy to admit was bollocks .
Of course you do
Are you at the Gallagher mcdonalds? They just extended their drive through to two lanesYes I do -- are you calling me a liar?
No I haven't
What experience in business lending do you have?
You said it was bullshit that the ability to repay a mortgage is based on projected income and that asset value provides comfort to the lender.. And Wasps is owned by a hedge fund. And the moon is made of cheese.
You said it was bullshit that the ability to repay a mortgage is based on projected income and that asset value provides comfort to the lender.. And Wasps is owned by a hedge fund. And the moon is made of cheese.
Yes I do -- are you calling me a liar?
Asset value is bullshit from my actual experience.
Moonstone provided Wasps funding from Malta and its shareholder structure is impossible to define. It's created a new arm to create the bond according to the prospectus hasn't it? What is moonstone then if not a hedge fund?
Asset value is bullshit from my actual experience.
Moonstone provided Wasps funding from Malta and its shareholder structure is impossible to define. It's created a new arm to create the bond according to the prospectus hasn't it? What is moonstone then if not a hedge fund?
Wasps seem to be getting criticised for structuring a purchase on the same lines as you and I buy a house.
And the moon is made of cheese.
Even if you ignore the fact that buying a house is not even remotely similar to a bond issue it doesn't' even work as an analogy.
If I wanted a huge mortgage but when the bank looked at my bank statements I was spending millions more every year than I had in income I don't think they'd be very keen to lend me millions. That's before you even consider the fact that the property I'm trying to get a £45m mortgage on sold a few months before for less than £6m.
No bank is giving you a mortgage on projected income. If you're equating the two the mortgage process would see you going to the bank to get a mortgage for £1.5m on a property you paid £200K for 6 months ago. No bank would lend on that basis, but lets just suppose they would. They would then ask to see your bank statements, They show you have an income of £2K a month but spend £4K a month. No problem you say, from now on my income will be £8K a month. What answer do you think you're going to get from the bank? I'll give you a clue, 2 short words, first starts with f second starts with o.
About as based in reality as many of your other posts.
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?