Wasps current finances & hope (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
Just looked at companies house and it says that the next accounts are not due until the end of this month? Do accounts have to be submitted months ahead of the deadline?
That being said I'm sure we've usually seen the accounts by now so they are probably later than usual.
That being said I'm sure we've usually seen the accounts by now so they are probably later than usual.
Nick
Administrator
Think it's this one?
Accounts overdue
Next accounts made up to 30 June 2017
due by 31 December 2017
Last accounts made up to 30 June 2016
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Ok here is my tuppence worth.
Doesn't matter what company it is, failing to file on time at companies house is wrong, it breaks the law. It can lead to a criminal prosecution but these are a lot rarer than you might think, a sizeable number of companies file documents like accounts or confirmation statements late
it being a breach of law is not something new but companies house have sharpened up and are less forgiving. So when the directors of Ccfc Ltd and ccfch Ltd failed to file on time they were also breaking the law. Did they get a criminal record - not that I know of - but I guess expressing things as the headline today does sells papers
I wouldn't read too much in to the phrase enforcement action at this stage it is monitoring and agreeing when the docs will be filed its just a standard phrase that covers a lot of things and they will never discuss with an unauthorized third party like a journalist
If you have a reasonable excuse, explain the circumstances you can usually agree a new target date to bring things up to date. It is at companies house discretion. What you certainly get, even for even a day late, is a financial penalty that increases the longer you are late.
Did I expect wasps finance to have filed by now - yes. Could it indicate a problem possibly but it might be just to file all together. We will find out in the next two weeks
The details of the bond amendment agreement were filed at the stock exchange in January it isn't a les reid scoop. But adds to my query as to why wasps finance not filed yet. Also why did reid not report the agreement 19th January?
I know people have referred to the timing of the CT article ( which could well be the case although the CT are not averse to negatively affecting wasps at times e.g. their story about not being able to repay the bond saw a big drop in bond price ) but I find the timing of Reid's article curious too. It follows on some curious comments about wasps accounts at the recent trust meeting by an otium employee. In theory whilst mediation is going on you would think comments might be more circumspect - reid tends to favour otium / Ccfc and dig at wasps. So what else are we not being told. Perhaps mediation is not going well? Most of his article is regurgitated old stuff but why now? 8 days before the group filing deadline ? Wasps finance were late 1st January 2018 so why wait 3 months to highlight it, what is the purpose of a bit more pressure
As for wasps 2017 figures, draft figures have been sitting on the LSE website since last December.
Like I said late filing is hard to excuse for any company, wasps or anyone else but why put it into print now? His article isn't wrong I just query what is behind the timing
Doesn't matter what company it is, failing to file on time at companies house is wrong, it breaks the law. It can lead to a criminal prosecution but these are a lot rarer than you might think, a sizeable number of companies file documents like accounts or confirmation statements late
it being a breach of law is not something new but companies house have sharpened up and are less forgiving. So when the directors of Ccfc Ltd and ccfch Ltd failed to file on time they were also breaking the law. Did they get a criminal record - not that I know of - but I guess expressing things as the headline today does sells papers
I wouldn't read too much in to the phrase enforcement action at this stage it is monitoring and agreeing when the docs will be filed its just a standard phrase that covers a lot of things and they will never discuss with an unauthorized third party like a journalist
If you have a reasonable excuse, explain the circumstances you can usually agree a new target date to bring things up to date. It is at companies house discretion. What you certainly get, even for even a day late, is a financial penalty that increases the longer you are late.
Did I expect wasps finance to have filed by now - yes. Could it indicate a problem possibly but it might be just to file all together. We will find out in the next two weeks
The details of the bond amendment agreement were filed at the stock exchange in January it isn't a les reid scoop. But adds to my query as to why wasps finance not filed yet. Also why did reid not report the agreement 19th January?
I know people have referred to the timing of the CT article ( which could well be the case although the CT are not averse to negatively affecting wasps at times e.g. their story about not being able to repay the bond saw a big drop in bond price ) but I find the timing of Reid's article curious too. It follows on some curious comments about wasps accounts at the recent trust meeting by an otium employee. In theory whilst mediation is going on you would think comments might be more circumspect - reid tends to favour otium / Ccfc and dig at wasps. So what else are we not being told. Perhaps mediation is not going well? Most of his article is regurgitated old stuff but why now? 8 days before the group filing deadline ? Wasps finance were late 1st January 2018 so why wait 3 months to highlight it, what is the purpose of a bit more pressure
As for wasps 2017 figures, draft figures have been sitting on the LSE website since last December.
Like I said late filing is hard to excuse for any company, wasps or anyone else but why put it into print now? His article isn't wrong I just query what is behind the timing
Last edited:
Thanks OSB, the timing is odd and I don't think either paper is announcing anything new. Apparently Wasps announced that there would be new screens quite a while ago. Not sure why it is directed to CCFC supporters either to be fair? The observer story, as ever has a different twist but again isn't anything particularly new.
I took a look at the bond site a short while ago to see if the news had any affect and although it hasn't affected the price I noticed that the bond has only seen 1 trade since they were awarded the permission to change the covenant. Not sure if there is anything to read into that?
I took a look at the bond site a short while ago to see if the news had any affect and although it hasn't affected the price I noticed that the bond has only seen 1 trade since they were awarded the permission to change the covenant. Not sure if there is anything to read into that?
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
They aren’t putting the screen in for us we put very little on the current one, it’s for their followers so they can keep up with the telly as they get a bit bored watching all the cuddling
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Can't help feeling if it was Otium who hadn't filed accounts on time it would be all over the CT.
Think I missed that, what was said?
Two new screens were ordered ages ago, one to replace the current scoreboard and one for the opposite corner. The order was cancelled, supposedly so a cheaper option could be found but that seems to have taken a while.
Its annoying the way things are presented. Like the big story in the CT about the seat colours not being changed. Made out to be for our benefit but the reality will be it will cost a fair amount to change them.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
And can't help thinking it wouldn't be mentioned in the CO. Two sides of the same coin really
Comments about why would Ccfc give wasps millions the state they were in and had anyone seen the accounts, stuff like that. Perhaps just coincidence. Having looked at comparing the the last four years of both companies I think both rely on owners goodwill but otium is more precarious. The wasps holdings figures are not late in any case, and drafts were published on the LSE in December as well
Perhaps it is just me being sceptical but often in the past a seemingly casual remark has actually been setting the scene for what Sisu or Fisher want us to see, followed by an article by reid, or so it seems to me. Yes similar has happened on the other side of things in the CT. Maybe just a coincidence and I am reading too much in to it but ........
If wasps accounts for all companies are filed by 31 March with no audit qualification then what's the big problem? So I still come back to aside from people's personal take on PR why do the article now and not before....... wasps finance which is not the trading company but a conduit for the bond were late months ago.
Oh just for completeness the wasps finance confirmation statement was filed late too .... that can get you in to trouble too. Due February rectified this week
Last edited:
As I understand it WASPS FINANCE Plc is not a WASPS HOLDINGS Group company - so March 31 is not relevant
All WF does is collect the interest off WH and pay out to Bond Holders - hardly the most difficult set of accounts to produce?
There were, of course, the "accounting irregularities" to be regularised which could have held up signing off. But that was in January and the problem was apparently removed by agreement to the Resolution. If that was the only problem why are the WH accounts still not filed?
According to WASPS the deferred date of March 31 was included in the Resolution although I have not seen that mentioned. In any event Companies cannot arbitrarily decide when they can file statutory accounts except by changing their ARD.
WASPS say they had the Registrar of Companies approval to the later date - if so why is the Registrar taking "enforcement action"
If at one point the CS and Accounts were being flagged as overdue then this would register on several monitoring platforms
All WF does is collect the interest off WH and pay out to Bond Holders - hardly the most difficult set of accounts to produce?
There were, of course, the "accounting irregularities" to be regularised which could have held up signing off. But that was in January and the problem was apparently removed by agreement to the Resolution. If that was the only problem why are the WH accounts still not filed?
According to WASPS the deferred date of March 31 was included in the Resolution although I have not seen that mentioned. In any event Companies cannot arbitrarily decide when they can file statutory accounts except by changing their ARD.
WASPS say they had the Registrar of Companies approval to the later date - if so why is the Registrar taking "enforcement action"
If at one point the CS and Accounts were being flagged as overdue then this would register on several monitoring platforms
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
No its not part of the wasps holdings sub group but it is part of the moonstone group.
Wasps finance purpose is to channel the bond funds one way and to take interest the other way from wasps holdings. The bond monies lent to WF have been lent to WH and secured by charges and guarantees. It is therefore essential that WF knows the audited position of WH to be able to sign its own audit off.
Ordinarily WH files its audited accounts at LSE 4 months after its year end 30/06 each year as per terms of the bond (that term waived this year) the filing date has not changed at companies house for WH it is still 9 mths after the year end
Nor has the filing date at companies house changed for WF. It is still 6 mths after its year end, shorter because WF is a plc but WH is not. The audit of WH has not been signed off as usual after 4 mths so I would think that until it is the auditors of WF will not sign that audit off. Might not be in same group but they are inter related.
WH accounts do not need to be filed at companies house until 31/03 there is no issue there
The likely penalty ? About £3000. The imposition of the penalty is the enforcement action.
Being late on the CS and accounts was disclosed on the companies house website for anyone who cared to look
Not sure how big a deal this all is. It's not like they are the first sports club related company not to file accounts or confirmation statements on time.
Wasps finance purpose is to channel the bond funds one way and to take interest the other way from wasps holdings. The bond monies lent to WF have been lent to WH and secured by charges and guarantees. It is therefore essential that WF knows the audited position of WH to be able to sign its own audit off.
Ordinarily WH files its audited accounts at LSE 4 months after its year end 30/06 each year as per terms of the bond (that term waived this year) the filing date has not changed at companies house for WH it is still 9 mths after the year end
Nor has the filing date at companies house changed for WF. It is still 6 mths after its year end, shorter because WF is a plc but WH is not. The audit of WH has not been signed off as usual after 4 mths so I would think that until it is the auditors of WF will not sign that audit off. Might not be in same group but they are inter related.
WH accounts do not need to be filed at companies house until 31/03 there is no issue there
The likely penalty ? About £3000. The imposition of the penalty is the enforcement action.
Being late on the CS and accounts was disclosed on the companies house website for anyone who cared to look
Not sure how big a deal this all is. It's not like they are the first sports club related company not to file accounts or confirmation statements on time.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Why are you making such a fuss about it then? You know it's Les Reid's favourite topic
Nick
Administrator
I'd guess they think it's a deal if they want to cover it up with "we aren't changing the seat colour" announcements.
That may be background during the mediation process like Reids article rather than to divert from Reids article.
Have there been one or two more from Eastwood now .
Seems like he's laying the ground for something due to drop ,or justify why without hard cash from the football club the benefits of running the Stadium can't be shared .
Cue the stories re the state of the pitch and even the revelation there are cracks, I doubt they Woke up suddenly and discovered those.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't have thought so. It pays 6.5% per year but I'm a little unsure if that is always on the initial value of issued bonds rather than the current value of the bonds. I think it's the former but not 100%. If the bond price collapses it might just make that particular financing route difficult in future?
Only that it does not instill any confidence if they want to refinance
The 6.5% is on the original issue price - fluctuations in the bond price affect the investor who is buying/selling.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Will wait see what happens by 31st March
As I said before I find it hard to justify any company filing their accounts or confirmation statement late.
As I said before I find it hard to justify any company filing their accounts or confirmation statement late.
If they wanted to snap them up ?
On this we agree - we both know accounts get filed late for several reasons. However I cannot believe that in January the Directors of WH decided they would not publish until the very last day for filing in March. What are they expecting to happen on that day? Also if the WF accounts are in order, signed off by the Auditors and filed would that not be a positive to them ?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Wasps Holdings accounts not published on CH yet though not showing as overdue either. Presume they've been submitted awaiting publication?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It can take a few days to go through the system fp ................... but am a little surprised by it you would think they would make a point of eliminating the potential rumours etc .......... also that the accounts are not of the LSE yet either
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What I find curious is that they'd filed other docs with CH in March, I would have expected they had done it all at once tbh.
The significant one was the FD resigning!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Charles Moore. Didn't he post on here!?
