Telegraph - Dave Walder Comments (I had forgotten he was still with us)

[InBetweenWasp]

I don't know for sure, but I doubt the plan relied on bumper crowds - I suspect it was more around better utilisation of the Stadium and Conferencing facilities in terms of days used.    Bumper crowds would have been a bonus, rather than a need.

Supposing you're right, was there a plan B for when it became apparent plan A wasn't working? I'm unsure.

Not sure if you're on a wind-up or not? - Really there's two 'plans' rugby teams can operate:

Plan A: Rugby related income (Matchday income, sponsorship, centralised income)
Plan B: Non-rugby related income (Non-rugby use of Stadium/Assets)

Final option; have a very wealthy benefactor to cover year-on-year losses

Plan A is rarely enough for clubs operating it (Quins, Saints, Gloucs, Bath, Irish, Sale, Newcastle) and adding Plan B to Plan A (Tigers, Chiefs, Sarries).  Not sure whether Bristol get much use out of Ashton gate on non-matchdays or whether it's part of their plans.

It was clear, that the vision for Derek and Co was to supplement A with B by increasing utilisation of non-rugby related stadium complex use. 

What alternatives did they have that you would have considered a viable alternative to the above? This is also the big piece that those who have been confidently predicting our demise and criticising the business plan seem to struggle with.

It's fine to say move back to Greater London and find a 10-15k seater stadium.  But what would that cost to build/buy? If you don't build/buy your own stadium, how do you generate enough income to sustain the Club?

Quins as the best example are the closest to making it work properly, but when the cap goes up another £2m in a season or twos time, how do they generate that extra income?

[Lwasp]

Financing a business with debt is rarely like taking out a personal loan, you do not plan to fully pay down the debt at the end of the period, in Wasps case 7 years. Wasps would have planned to refinance the debt.

Wasps have repeatedly failed to secure refinancing. That's where Plan A failed.

[The Falcon]

I don't know for sure, but I doubt the plan relied on bumper crowds - I suspect it was more around better utilisation of the Stadium and Conferencing facilities in terms of days used.    Bumper crowds would have been a bonus, rather than a need.

Supposing you're right, was there a plan B for when it became apparent plan A wasn't working? I'm unsure.

Not sure if you're on a wind-up or not? - Really there's two 'plans' rugby teams can operate:

Plan A: Rugby related income (Matchday income, sponsorship, centralised income)
Plan B: Non-rugby related income (Non-rugby use of Stadium/Assets)

Final option; have a very wealthy benefactor to cover year-on-year losses

Plan A is rarely enough for clubs operating it (Quins, Saints, Gloucs, Bath, Irish, Sale, Newcastle) and adding Plan B to Plan A (Tigers, Chiefs, Sarries).  Not sure whether Bristol get much use out of Ashton gate on non-matchdays or whether it's part of their plans.

It was clear, that the vision for Derek and Co was to supplement A with B by increasing utilisation of non-rugby related stadium complex use. 

What alternatives did they have that you would have considered a viable alternative to the above? This is also the big piece that those who have been confidently predicting our demise and criticising the business plan seem to struggle with.

It's fine to say move back to Greater London and find a 10-15k seater stadium.  But what would that cost to build/buy? If you don't build/buy your own stadium, how do you generate enough income to sustain the Club?

Quins as the best example are the closest to making it work properly, but when the cap goes up another £2m in a season or twos time, how do they generate that extra income?

The conclusion I'm coming to is that this was an enormous unaffordable gamble. Non-sporting stadium use would have needed to have run at around £15 million plus a year in profit to be able to afford the bond repayment that was pencilled in for 2022, taking into account the large losses on the rugby side of the business.

You're also right that the alternatives in London wouldn't have solved the long term issues either. But perhaps going for what Saracens have now settled on, with reduced risk, and without trying to establish a new fan base at the same time, and we'd still have a club to support next year.

[Rossm]

Financing a business with debt is rarely like taking out a personal loan, you do not plan to fully pay down the debt at the end of the period, in Wasps case 7 years. Wasps would have planned to refinance the debt.

Wasps have repeatedly failed to secure refinancing. That's where Plan A failed.

I firmly believe that we had secured refinancing, probably at least a year ago. All indications point to this. But, someone got cold feet and pulled out, I think quite close to the actual date which left us up shit creek. I expect it was to do with uncertainty about interest rates.

[InBetweenWasp]

Financing a business with debt is rarely like taking out a personal loan, you do not plan to fully pay down the debt at the end of the period, in Wasps case 7 years. Wasps would have planned to refinance the debt.

Wasps have repeatedly failed to secure refinancing. That's where Plan A failed.

I firmly believe that we had secured refinancing, probably at least a year ago. All indications point to this. But, someone got cold feet and pulled out, I think quite close to the actual date which left us up shit creek. I expect it was to do with uncertainty about interest rates.

The problem with re-financing turned out to be the timing; if we had of kicked off a year early it was probably too soon post-covid to get the asset value we needed/wanted to borrow against and right as it needed to be re-finance the lending markets tightened everything up.

[Shugs]

I don't know for sure, but I doubt the plan relied on bumper crowds - I suspect it was more around better utilisation of the Stadium and Conferencing facilities in terms of days used.    Bumper crowds would have been a bonus, rather than a need.

Supposing you're right, was there a plan B for when it became apparent plan A wasn't working? I'm unsure.

Not sure if you're on a wind-up or not? - Really there's two 'plans' rugby teams can operate:

Plan A: Rugby related income (Matchday income, sponsorship, centralised income)
Plan B: Non-rugby related income (Non-rugby use of Stadium/Assets)

Final option; have a very wealthy benefactor to cover year-on-year losses

Plan A is rarely enough for clubs operating it (Quins, Saints, Gloucs, Bath, Irish, Sale, Newcastle) and adding Plan B to Plan A (Tigers, Chiefs, Sarries).  Not sure whether Bristol get much use out of Ashton gate on non-matchdays or whether it's part of their plans.

It was clear, that the vision for Derek and Co was to supplement A with B by increasing utilisation of non-rugby related stadium complex use. 

What alternatives did they have that you would have considered a viable alternative to the above? This is also the big piece that those who have been confidently predicting our demise and criticising the business plan seem to struggle with.

It's fine to say move back to Greater London and find a 10-15k seater stadium.  But what would that cost to build/buy? If you don't build/buy your own stadium, how do you generate enough income to sustain the Club?

Quins as the best example are the closest to making it work properly, but when the cap goes up another £2m in a season or twos time, how do they generate that extra income?

The conclusion I'm coming to is that this was an enormous unaffordable gamble. Non-sporting stadium use would have needed to have run at around £15 million plus a year in profit to be able to afford the bond repayment that was pencilled in for 2022, taking into account the large losses on the rugby side of the business.

You're also right that the alternatives in London wouldn't have solved the long term issues either. But perhaps going for what Saracens have now settled on, with reduced risk, and without trying to establish a new fan base at the same time, and we'd still have a club to support next year.

Sizeable legal fees as a result of your lot didn’t help.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

When was the bond issued, and when was the original repayment date?

The date for repayment was always in 2022 wasn't it? Happy to be corrected. The interest payments alone were also £2 million a year. We were borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and would have need to make profit of £4-5 million a year to have been able to pay it back on schedule. Instead we were substantially in the red for most of the time and whatever plan we had for the business to get stronger, it didn't work.

You have, I suspect deliberately not answered the actual question. The bond was issued in what? 2015? It was due for repayment in 2022.

Can you think of anything unusual that happened between 2015 and 2022?

[Rossm]

I don't know for sure, but I doubt the plan relied on bumper crowds - I suspect it was more around better utilisation of the Stadium and Conferencing facilities in terms of days used.    Bumper crowds would have been a bonus, rather than a need.

Supposing you're right, was there a plan B for when it became apparent plan A wasn't working? I'm unsure.

Not sure if you're on a wind-up or not? - Really there's two 'plans' rugby teams can operate:

Plan A: Rugby related income (Matchday income, sponsorship, centralised income)
Plan B: Non-rugby related income (Non-rugby use of Stadium/Assets)

Final option; have a very wealthy benefactor to cover year-on-year losses

Plan A is rarely enough for clubs operating it (Quins, Saints, Gloucs, Bath, Irish, Sale, Newcastle) and adding Plan B to Plan A (Tigers, Chiefs, Sarries).  Not sure whether Bristol get much use out of Ashton gate on non-matchdays or whether it's part of their plans.

It was clear, that the vision for Derek and Co was to supplement A with B by increasing utilisation of non-rugby related stadium complex use. 

What alternatives did they have that you would have considered a viable alternative to the above? This is also the big piece that those who have been confidently predicting our demise and criticising the business plan seem to struggle with.

It's fine to say move back to Greater London and find a 10-15k seater stadium.  But what would that cost to build/buy? If you don't build/buy your own stadium, how do you generate enough income to sustain the Club?

Quins as the best example are the closest to making it work properly, but when the cap goes up another £2m in a season or twos time, how do they generate that extra income?

The conclusion I'm coming to is that this was an enormous unaffordable gamble. Non-sporting stadium use would have needed to have run at around £15 million plus a year in profit to be able to afford the bond repayment that was pencilled in for 2022, taking into account the large losses on the rugby side of the business.

You're also right that the alternatives in London wouldn't have solved the long term issues either. But perhaps going for what Saracens have now settled on, with reduced risk, and without trying to establish a new fan base at the same time, and we'd still have a club to support next year.

Sizeable unpaid legal fees as a result of your lot didn’t help.

Just a small edit, Shugs.

[WonkyWasp]

''The  Other Thread'' has a comment from Owen Slot of The Times which knocks Walder's (DTel) comments into the septic tank in which they belong.  Worth a read.

[InBetweenWasp]

The conclusion I'm coming to is that this was an enormous unaffordable gamble. Non-sporting stadium use would have needed to have run at around £15 million plus a year in profit to be able to afford the bond repayment that was pencilled in for 2022, taking into account the large losses on the rugby side of the business.

You're also right that the alternatives in London wouldn't have solved the long term issues either. But perhaps going for what Saracens have now settled on, with reduced risk, and without trying to establish a new fan base at the same time, and we'd still have a club to support next year.

I'm not sure it needed to generate that much profit; I don't think the plan was to pay off the bond at the end of it's term, it was almost certainly to re-finance it. 

Is it normal for businesses to plan for a Global Pandemic and invasion of one of the world's largest grain producers? - I guess it probably is a bit more front of mind today than it was 7 years ago.  I'm guessing there are a fair few companies trying to work out their reliance on Tawainese-produced chips and de-risking a Chinese invasion. 

[Rossm]

''The  Other Thread'' has a comment from Owen Slot of The Times which knocks Walder's (DTel) comments into the septic tank in which they belong.  Worth a read.

FYI. Here is Owen Slot's article in The Times.

Rugby stands silent as Wasps, one of its greatest clubs, hits wall

As Wasps go through their death throes, does everyone else just stand by and watch? Because that is how it seems.

Do we even need to spell out the vast significance of Wasps as a club, their history, their contribution to club rugby in England, their contribution to the England (and other national) teams, their nearly peerless track record of success? In the 36 seasons of Premiership rugby, Wasps are one of four clubs who have been ever present, and only Leicester Tigers have won more titles; Wasps are also twice champions of Europe.

This is what the Premiership is saying goodbye to, though no one is really saying anything. As Steve Diamond, who was director of rugby at Worcester Warriors when they finally bit the dust a fortnight ago, said: “The ship has sunk, the captains are nowhere to be seen. The RFU/PRL [Premiership Rugby Ltd] band played in the background.”

You wonder where CVC, the private equity company, has gone to too. It is nearly four years since CVC bought a 27 per cent share of the Premiership. It has never publicly explained why, or what was — or is — its intention with this acquisition. In recent weeks, it has lost two of the 13 clubs. Why was there no rescue package coming to the assistance of two of its assets? From CVC, not even a word.

Rugby, like all professional sports, thrives on rivalries. Yet the Premiership has just lost one of its most historic brands, every other club have lost one of their biggest home fixtures. The broadcasters have lost the opportunity to show them.

Wasps finally declared yesterday that they were unable to pay their bills and are therefore destined for administration. It would have helped for them to have some time while they negotiated further with potential suitors, but they needed to buy that time. They needed some kind of a cash runway while they searched for a solvent solution. Could CVC not have provided that?

This is where sport is complicated. Buying into a sport is more than a business deal. You are buying into the hopes and dreams of fans, you are buying into a community activity; your clients are not just paying punters, because they share a culture of emotional ownership; in other words, you, the owners, are custodians as well as business people. How does CVC’s custodianship look today?

It turns out that Wasps, their brand and history, were not worth saving. The next issue is whether the other clubs are prepared to give Wasps and Worcester even a pulse.

Once a Premiership club go into administration, the other 12 clubs have the opportunity to decide whether to buy out their P share. The P share is in effect your golden ticket, your access to the cashflow system. That is why clubs from outside the Premiership find it impossible to break in — because they have no P share. It will cost £9.8 million to buy each of Wasps and Worcester out of their P shares; at that point, they will find it impossible to come back out of administration and break back in.

The other Premiership clubs prodding the carcass of Wasps and Worcester is like a starving family debating whether to eat its weakest family members. If they share round the value of the Wasps and Worcester P shares then, naturally, the value of the annual P share dividend that they each accrue themselves is greater. Kill off Wasps and Worcester, in other words, and we all get fatter.

I suspect that this is where the Premiership is going. It is an entirely Darwinian approach, but when did clubs work together to look after themselves? The levels of debt across the (surviving) clubs are such that they are motivated by selfish priorities rather than the collective good.

This is the terrible, harsh reality of professional club rugby in England. One of the greatest clubs have hit the wall, the captains are still nowhere to be seen and the band still plays on in the background.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

I feel like Wasps have fallen off the ship, and the other passengers are too busy fighting over who will get our cabin to think about throwing us a lifeline.

[Shugs]

I feel like Wasps have fallen off the ship, and the other passengers are too busy fighting over who will get our cabin to think about throwing us a lifeline.

Indeed. And those who know full well their cabin will be next think they are in a fair fight.

[wasps]

It's fine to say move back to Greater London and find a 10-15k seater stadium.  But what would that cost to build/buy? If you don't build/buy your own stadium, how do you generate enough income to sustain the Club?

If memory serves, the met police refused to have any additional sports teams in greater London when it was an option for us.


So that left us reviewing options on the outskirts.
The Brentford stadium now in use by London Irish was firmly not for rugby use 8 years ago.
There were no options in high Wycombe
We tried St Alban's and they didn't want a rugby team.


From memory there were discussions in some other areas too that didn't lead far, and then there was the Ricoh with a welcoming council

[InBetweenWasp]

It's fine to say move back to Greater London and find a 10-15k seater stadium.  But what would that cost to build/buy? If you don't build/buy your own stadium, how do you generate enough income to sustain the Club?

If memory serves, the met police refused to have any additional sports teams in greater London when it was an option for us.


So that left us reviewing options on the outskirts.
The Brentford stadium now in use by London Irish was firmly not for rugby use 8 years ago.
There were no options in high Wycombe
We tried St Alban's and they didn't want a rugby team.


From memory there were discussions in some other areas too that didn't lead far, and then there was the Ricoh with a welcoming council

So where to play if The CBS is flogged and we're persona non grata? Anyone have any bright ideas?