Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: Heathen on September 04, 2022, 11:13:12 AM
-
This was posted by Neils on the Worcester thread but it deserves it's own discussion page IMHO.
Premiership clubs rack up more than £500MILLION in debt
Not looking good across the board.
Another article has the LI owner offering to give away the club for free.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-11177209/Premiership-clubs-rack-500MILLION-debt-amid-English-rugby-financial-crisis.html
How on earth are Wasps going to survive?? £112 milion in debt.
-
I was trying to hide it!
Having read it again I am left wondering where all the figures came from. Not forgetting that they always quote figures for Wasps that include everything in the complex unlike all the other clubs pure rugby club figures. It IS a very frightening figure though.
-
Some obvious questions. Where have the figures come from? Why do we not have £112m of debt showing in any accounts? How much different is this to how it has been - IF it’s correct? There seems to be some real anti Wasps press stuff at the moment - is this just a continuation?
-
Aren't most sports clubs, whatever size of debt, just one main backer pulling out away from serious trouble.
-
Sport in difficulty -
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/sep/04/english-rugby-financial-crisis-suggests-premiership-clubs-will-have-to-adapt-worcester
-
£112M is absolute rubbish.
Nuff said...
-
Rugby is sustainable as long as there are people who want to pump money into it for little or no return. But once one club goes I fear that there will be a domino effect until we are left with maybe half a dozen clubs, run as franchises centrally by the RFU.
-
The Guardian reporter suggests that Central Contracts could be on the way as a means of lessening the financial burden on clubs.
This would of course likely impact match attendances as supporters would be less inclined to go to games if the top players are not performing.
-
Internationals don’t play much for their clubs anyway what with all the get togethers, training camps, friendlies, tournaments and compulsory rest periods. I think it’s long overdue the clubs were compensated.
-
Internationals don’t play much for their clubs anyway what with all the get togethers, training camps, friendlies, tournaments and compulsory rest periods. I think it’s long overdue the clubs were compensated.
You forgot the Eddie Injuries.
-
How could I forget.
-
The Guardian reporter suggests that Central Contracts could be on the way as a means of lessening the financial burden on clubs.
This would of course likely impact match attendances as supporters would be less inclined to go to games if the top players are not performing.
I am not sure that is true. I enjoy depleted games where both sides are hit.
Many of my best memories are during 6n games. The main issue is being able to see both games. Obviously places like Cov. Welsh exist, with good atmosphere for Wal v England especially, but sometimes it just does not work with kick off times etc.
-
Looks like Sale have found room in their budget for a 5-7 seater plane. According to FlightRadar24 it's made short trips to Shannon, Chichester, Gloucester, Yeovilton and four to London in the past week, often spending less than 30 minutes on the ground.
-
Registered in Guernsey.
Wonder if that's where the holding company is registered.
-
Done some checking and it's owned by the business of one of the club owners.
-
Can you imagine thre flack from supporters of a certain football club if there was a G-WASP helicopter?
Oh there is (and it's nothing to do with us):
(https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/abpic-media-eu-production/pictures/full_size_018/1028520-large.jpg)
-
Oh! That is so wonderful! Can I have one for Christmas please?? And a pilot too? Wouldn't it create chaos if that landed in the middle of the pitch just before a game ............... a footie game of course .................. oh joy and jubilation!!
-
As long as Wasps pay for any damage to the pitch.
-
Nice one Sam!
-
I must admit when I first saw the title of this thread I thought there might be plans to put a windfarm on carpark C now there is unlikely to be a hotel there
-
That could sort out our debts quite quickly. :D
-
The slime ridden reporter comments -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-62795446
-
Weird that the only bondholder to comment didn’t want to be named.
-
No-one's contacted me!
-
He is not even trying to hide his bias anymore.
-
By Simon Gilbert
BBC CWR political reporter
Perhaps he should stick to reporting council meetings and the like and leave finance, business and sport to those who understand it?
-
No-one's contacted me!
Nor me. But there is a Facebook group that seems to be attempting to collect the details of as many bondholders as possible in order to force the trustee into some form of action, though what that is it's hard to say.
-
He is not even trying to hide his bias anymore.
What bias. Everything he has said is true.
-
He is not even trying to hide his bias anymore.
What bias. Everything he has said is true.
Yes from your biased point of view!
-
He is not even trying to hide his bias anymore.
What bias. Everything he has said is true.
It's not what he says, but how he frames it that makes it clear he has a personal bias. Take this section for example:
It has also been revealed Wasps failed to pay Coventry City Council an agreed fee to take over the lease of car park land next to the arena, which was due to be developed into a hotel.
That meant a £12.2m loan agreed between the West Midlands Combined Authority and Wasps owner Derek Richardson to fund the development was not able to be drawn down.
"It has been revealed" - a clear implication that something was attempting to be hidden.
"failed to pay" as if there was a debt and Wasps had defaulted on it, there was no debt. What there was, was a plan, pre-covid, to build a new hotel. A location had been identified, a lease agreed, and funding secured. That the situation had changed, and they decided not to go ahead with the original plan should be being spoken about as a very sensible decision by Wasps. A sign of their financial nouse and responsibility. They chose not to incur large amounts of debt for a new project at this time.
And yet Gilbert goes out of his way to frame it as a deceibtful failure to pay on the part of Wasps.
So yes, clear bias.
-
Yes, it’s typical sensationalist journalism that’s skewed to their current anti Wasps narrative. He even checked if the council were the re-financiers of the bond which either shows he has zero financial knowledge or was once again merely trying to curry favour with CCFC fans. It’s not even particularly subtle. The irony is he was all the names under the sun when he wrote something against CCFC.
-
Isn’t that just normal media sensationalism? But if you want to take it that Gilbert is biased, fair enough. He has also been accused of being anti Sisu and pro council.
-
That’s my point really - it’s just pretty poor journalism that is light on anything new and skewed to garner cheap support.
-
Bias against Wasps may be the wrong terminology.
It feels like it's more a case of needing click bait type articles to resonate with the target audience.
No one will read an article that says "there's problems, but something we don't know about is happening to try to get everything under control".
There's no sensationalism in that
It's the desire for views that explains why both sides of this feel that he's been against them at various times
-
That’s my point really - it’s just pretty poor journalism that is light on anything new and skewed to garner cheap support.
The bondholders “organising themselves was new to the media, and the rest around the bonds is context. They have reached over the 10% needed to call an EGM via the trustee, and that’s from the very small number of visible bondholders. The quote from one is representative of some but the majority seem prepared to give a short period of time given a lack of trust. If the refinance comes off, all will be good, but if it doesn’t I think their patience will have been exhausted.
-
I noticed he’d put himself on the bond forum. As new news goes bondholders getting organised is about as groundbreaking as the earth being round.
-
I noticed he’d put himself on the bond forum. As new news goes bondholders getting organised is about as groundbreaking as the earth being round.
I said it was new to the media. And actually, it’s taken them a long time to organise themselves - as they have realised that their brokers are not actually doing much for the fees they receive.
-
You are mistaken in thinking the bondholders have organised themselves in order to be able to act. The organisers of the online groups have managed to identify the holders of just over 10% of the bonds. There is at present no agreement to act together, or even an agreement of the direction in which to act.
So in fact what has happened is that a number of bond holders have spoken to each other. Which is not quite the headline grabbing bollocks that is being spouted.
I'd be very interested to find out if the anonymous bondholder quoted actually proved his holdings, and what level they are.
-
You are mistaken in thinking the bondholders have organised themselves in order to be able to act. The organisers of the online groups have managed to identify the holders of just over 10% of the bonds. There is at present no agreement to act together, or even an agreement of the direction in which to act.
So in fact what has happened is that a number of bond holders have spoken to each other. Which is not quite the headline grabbing bollocks that is being spouted.
I'd be very interested to find out if the anonymous bondholder quoted actually proved his holdings, and what level they are.
You are correct, there is no agreement to act together, so far it has only been limited to simply identifying bondholders and the amount that they hold (some have not stated what their holding is), for those that have it amounts to over 10% (we have been asked to keep the details private, so I do not want to say any more than that). The list has come about due to frustration over lack of detail in communications from Wasps.
I have not been asked to prove what my holding is yet, although I could easily do so if asked.
If Wasps provided more detail it would certainly calm things down, perhaps something as simple as a projected timescale of the refinancing process would help, but I accept that I have no experience in these matters, so I do not have a 'feel' for what Wasps are free to disclose or not during their negotiations with potential financiers. I am not as optimistic as one might anticipate after an announcement stating that an offer for refinancing has been received. I have no malice towards Wasps, when I first invested in the bond I knew very little about rugby at club level, and I still don't, but naturally after investing I took an interest in Wasps (which was why I joined this forum) and I started following their results every weekend, and began to look forward to doing so. It might be pushing it to call me a fan, but I definitely want to see Wasps come out of this unscathed.
All the communication that I have had with other bond holders has taken place on this public forum https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/wasps-22-WAS1/share-chat
So you can see for yourself what has been said, and there is also a Facebook group too (which I have not joined).
-
My post was entirely accurate. As I said, The bondholders have organised themselves so they can act, they have enough nominal value to take some action, they haven’t decided to take any action yet, they are prepared to give Wasps limited time to reveal the refinancing.
If Steve hasn’t provided evidence of his bond holding to the Trustee, then his name and contact details won’t/ shouldn’t have been on the list shared with those who have provided both proof and permission to the Trustee. He won’t/shouldn’t be part of the 10% plus and hence won’t be party to any discussions they may be having between them. What Steve hasn’t said is whether he hopes Wasps come through this unscathed having had his investment returned, which I am sure all bondholders would be hopeful of.
-
I am very hopeful that I get all my investment returned, but bear in mind that I only paid an average price of just under 60p (not the full 100p), of course it would be great to be paid the full 100 pence, and my hopes of that have increased since the last Wasps announcement, but I am trying to be realistic, at the moment I am hoping for something between 60 and 100p. I would rather prepare myself for something lower than 100p and be happy at the end, than be over optimistic and end up disappointed.
-
If the refinance come to fruition, you will get full nominal value so you will have done pretty well in terms of roi.
-
If the refinance come to fruition, you will get full nominal value so you will have done pretty well in terms of roi.
I think that there are quite a few investors in the same position, and capital gains on individual bonds are tax free.
-
Exactly right. Which is a very good reason that any in that position will probably be willing to hang on a little longer rather than enter what could be a protracted process that yields less in the end anyway.
-
Exactly right. Which is a very good reason that any in that position will probably be willing to hang on a little longer rather than enter what could be a protracted process that yields less in the end anyway.
Not only that but all investors who bought cheaply are getting a higher interest rate while they are waiting (my current rate is almost 11%), so I've no problem with waiting.
But as I said above, I would like to see Wasps get out of this, not just in the immediate future, but also in the long run. But it looks like the business model (for the league not just Wasps) has to change somehow to make it much more sustainable. I have no idea how that would happen though, because the changes appear to need to be quite significant.
-
my current rate is almost 11%
This is a very interesting point that I had completely failed to grasp. I came in at a fraction over 70p so am getting 9%, can't see my small investment attracting that kind of return anywhere else.
-
Apparently a small group but of the largest bond holdings are initiating a meeting to enforce the bonds. Will take a few weeks but patience is running out. At least LD has reassured you all a few days ago that everything will be sorted out in a few days. Obviously if they get their money back there will be no harm done.
-
Apparently doesn't cut it, SBSam.
-
Apparently doesn't cut it, SBSam.
Ok then, I will rephrase for accuracy and precision. A small group but of the largest bond holdings are initiating a meeting to enforce the bonds. Will take a few weeks but patience is running out. At least LD has reassured you all a few days ago that everything will be sorted out in a few days. Obviously if they get their money back there will be no harm done.
-
Link?
-
Link?
https://twitter.com/RobOMalley8/status/1568543114524073984
My original post referred to the first paragraph on the attachment. I think if they get 25% they can initiate some action without the need for an EGM, which is what the second paragraph refers to.
-
A tweet of a screen capture of a Facebook post stating an unknown number of people are looking to meet to vote on whether to act.
While I have no doubt some people are looking to try to force the rest of us into action I'm not convinced that's actually much different from a Facebook group being set up, or a website...
-
A tweet of a screen capture of a Facebook post stating an unknown number of people are looking to meet to vote on whether to act.
While I have no doubt some people are looking to try to force the rest of us into action I'm not convinced that's actually much different from a Facebook group being set up, or a website...
Well, you can believe what you like, but that is the situation. They don’t have to force the rest of you in to action (by “us” I’m assuming you mean other bondholders. If they get sufficient value, they can force action without the rest of “you” being able to stop it.
Unlike the previous Wasps actions in respect of the bonds, including the consent solicitation releasing them from certain requirements but which many/ most bondholders knew nothing about, they certainly seem prepared to act as a cohesive unit if the arrangements for repayment aren’t forthcoming imminently.
-
They’ve not issued the consent solicitation Sam. They’re working on it concurrently. Question for you Sam. If Wasps fail what do you think the outcome for CCFC will be? However balanced you try to portray yourself (not sure why) it’s obviously the outcome you want - I’m just not sure why. It would be disastrous for CCFC.
-
PS VV as a bondholder, perhaps you too should join the Facebook group and also contact Laurence Griffiths at US Bank Trustees with proof of holding so your contact details can be shared with others, in order that you will be able to see and participate directly in the communications between that group. Unless you already have, of course.
-
They’ve not issued the consent solicitation Sam. They’re working on it concurrently. Question for you Sam. If Wasps fail what do you think the outcome for CCFC will be? However balanced you try to portray yourself (not sure why) it’s obviously the outcome you want - I’m just not sure why. It would be disastrous for CCFC.
Oh dear Shugs, didn’t you notice the word “previous”. I was talking about the consent solicitation which was issued on 6 October 2020 which sought to release Wasps from certain financial covenants in the original bond agreement and which was approved by a small number of bondholders, with what seems like a significant number of them not having had it brought to their attention by their brokers.
Third party ownership of the stadium would be fine by me, with the third party providing a decent pitch without the football club, with its own cash flow issues, having to stump up the cost up front.
-
https://www.investegate.co.uk/wasps-finance-plc--was1-/rns/update-on-consent-solicitation/202010300700076897D/
-
https://www.investegate.co.uk/wasps-finance-plc--was1-/rns/update-on-consent-solicitation/202010300700076897D/
I fail to see the relevance of this as it is dated October 2020.
-
https://www.investegate.co.uk/wasps-finance-plc--was1-/rns/update-on-consent-solicitation/202010300700076897D/
I fail to see the relevance of this as it is dated October 2020.
It was for Shugs, he must have missed it at the time.
-
They’ve not issued the consent solicitation Sam. They’re
working on it concurrently. Question for you Sam. If Wasps fail what do you think the outcome for CCFC will be? However balanced you try to portray yourself (not sure why) it’s obviously the outcome you want - I’m just not sure why. It would be disastrous for CCFC.
Oh dear Shugs, didn’t you notice the word “previous”. I was talking about the consent solicitation which was issued on 6 October 2020 which sought to release Wasps from certain financial covenants in the original bond agreement and which was approved by a small number of bondholders, with what seems like a significant number of them not having had it brought to their attention by their brokers.
Third party ownership of the stadium would be fine by me, with the third party providing a decent pitch without the football club, with its own cash flow issues, having to stump up the cost up front.
Apologies, my natural assumption was that it was a relevant issue you were raising. Just so we have a balance though and not supposition masquerading as facts. We have no idea how many bondholders agreed to it. We have no idea if and how much CCFC paid for the pitch and there is zero chance of third party ownership in reality, outside of Wasps.
-
They’ve not issued the consent solicitation Sam. They’re
working on it concurrently. Question for you Sam. If Wasps fail what do you think the outcome for CCFC will be? However balanced you try to portray yourself (not sure why) it’s obviously the outcome you want - I’m just not sure why. It would be disastrous for CCFC.
Oh dear Shugs, didn’t you notice the word “previous”. I was talking about the consent solicitation which was issued on 6 October 2020 which sought to release Wasps from certain financial covenants in the original bond agreement and which was approved by a small number of bondholders, with what seems like a significant number of them not having had it brought to their attention by their brokers.
Third party ownership of the stadium would be fine by me, with the third party providing a decent pitch without the football club, with its own cash flow issues, having to stump up the cost up front.
Apologies, my natural assumption was that it was a relevant issue you were raising. Just so we have a balance though and not supposition masquerading as facts. We have no idea how many bondholders agreed to it. We have no idea if and how much CCFC paid for the pitch and there is zero chance of third party ownership in reality, outside of Wasps.
It is a relevant issue in that, having been bypassed previously and not trusting Wasps, the bondholders are organising themselves so that they can act as and when they deem fit.
The fact that insufficient bondholders voted at the first opportunity to do so on that consent solicitation, such that it had to go to a meeting where no quorum was required, is reasonable evidence that a minority voted for it.
Boddy has confirmed that the upfront costs were met by the football clubs, with the money to be recouped from future invoices.
Are you seriously suggesting that nobody would buy the arena if the bondholders forced a sale?
-
I think its becoming clear that you have no purpose here other than to spread dissent and bad feeling.
Those of us who are actually bondholders are perfectly able to follow the situation without your help, and those of us who aren't don't seem to want you here either way.
This is a forum for supporters of Wasps, you have made it perfectly clear you are not one of those.
-
Sam
I've always backed your right to debate and broaden awareness, which I think you have done well.
We've been told that brighter news is imminent.
By a source that everyone trusts on here.
Why not just wait a couple of days to hear what that is, rather than a further wave of your presuppositions?
I'm not sure what you do from day to day, but it's now becoming apparent that you derive enjoyment from prodding and baiting people on this site.
You're like a dog constantly biting at the heels. Quite annoying after a time.
I'm not trying to shut down your opinions, but more request that you turn down the obsessiveness of it a bit.
It's unrelenting...and I'm sure you have other interests in life to balance it all out.
-
Remember he hasn't had any falling over so called sport to watch so probably a bit ratty.
-
Remember he hasn't had any falling over so called sport to watch so probably a bit ratty.
-
Remember he hasn't had any falling over so called sport to watch so probably a bit ratty.
Be careful what you say about 'falling over sport', he might throw Nic White at you ;)
-
Link?
https://twitter.com/RobOMalley8/status/1568543114524073984
My original post referred to the first paragraph on the attachment. I think if they get 25% they can initiate some action without the need for an EGM, which is what the second paragraph refers to.
Another CCFC fan who is a Bondholder?
-
Going back to Lol's statement on Sept 7th. How long is a few days?
Wasps director Lawrence Dallaglio has revealed that the club's financial future will be "much brighter" in the next few days
Good news must be happening this week.
-
Going back to Lol's statement on Sept 7th. How long is a few days?
Wasps director Lawrence Dallaglio has revealed that the club's financial future will be "much brighter" in the next few days
Good news must be happening this week.
Or will announcements wait until next week post-funeral?
-
How long is a few days?
I always take it to mean less than a week, but more than 3. So 4-6 days.
How long since he said that? Oh yes, promises, promises ...
I will inject some humour at this point:
http://www.anvari.org/shortjoke/Jokes_from_Emails/9195_28-of-the-worlds-biggest-lies-1-the-check-is-in-the-mail.html