Club aims to raise £35m from bond (1 Viewer)

[ccfcway]

In some cases a labour vote is genuine but the old saying of "my father voted labour and his father before him" still rings true in this city.
I actually drink with 2 mates who are very well paid workers mainly due to tory policies from the 90s and they still vote labour.

well, its a personal opinion, but i wouldnt go near them if i lived in Cov. They have contributed to the mess CCFC is in, so its a no from me.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

well, its a personal opinion, but i wouldnt go near them if i lived in Cov. They have contributed to the mess CCFC is in, so its a no from me.

You'd make a decision on who you vote for based on a football club? Really!

I wonder how many votes they gained from Wasps convertees in Coventry?

 

[fernandopartridge]

I guess the point is that the owner is off the hook for at least ten million pounds - and it gives them a bit of a lift short term. It also takes away the risk that the Council are forced to pull the plug on the ACL loan as the result of SISU's court battle.

From that point of view the owner has played a blinder here.

I don't think it makes Wasps a much safer bet long term though, they've now got a huge debt to service, alongside a rising salary cap, substantially funded by a television deal that is yet to show it's sustainable in the long term (rough viewing figures for Prem Rugby in the low hundreds of thousands per game, for Prem football, into the millions).

It's very exciting for Wasps, but I can see plenty of risks in their business model. I wonder if SISU might consider a bond issue to fund CCFC and/or a new stadium on the back of this!

6.8% annual return over 7 years on £35m is £6m-ish per year (£43m) in total. You have to think the reason for doing down this route is that a proper lender wouldn't fancy the risk. Or am I miscalculating? What happens if they default?

 

[skybluejelly]

6.8% annual return over 7 years on £35m is £6m-ish per year (£43m) in total. You have to think the reason for doing down this route is that a proper lender wouldn't fancy the risk. Or am I miscalculating? What happens if they default?

Yes you are miscalculating... 6.8% is approximately 2.4 million a year in interest so about 17 million in total interest..

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Yes you are miscalculating... 6.8% is approximately 2.4 million a year in interest so about 17 million in total interest..

tbh I'm not seeing where Wasps can get 2.4 million a year. Wasps had an operating loss of 4 million last year, and ACL lost 400k (even in a good year for ACL they make what about 600k-1 million profit?)

Where is the money coming to cover Wasps losses, pay off the debt and fund a winning team?

 

[NorthernWisdom]

and sadly today the people of coventry have voted them back in

Little choice.

When it cameto the council, I actually voted Green, as much because I wasn't sure whether to vote them or Labour and, having a vote for the local government meant I could indulge both, and the Ricoh issue probably swung which way.

However...

I've thus elected into parliament one of the councillors who voted for the deal, so it's not really much of an argument. The problem, however, is when it came to the local election I only had leaflets from labour and TUSC. If nobody else wants my vote, how am I supposed to vote for them?

And even if I think the Ricoh deal is wrong, it's not the only issue for me to vote on. If there's no single issue candidate to register my displeasure, then there's little way to register my protest. So then I have to vote as per everyone else for self interest. The Ricoh deal is wrong, but I believe in public service and it being at as high a level as possible...

So, then, like it or not the RIcoh has not been an issue during the campaign. None of the parties have made it one... to me at least. Therefore, of the choices available, I had no option to register my displeasure. Therefore, my vote is not an endorsement of that decision, more the best fit of what is left.

 

[skybluejelly]

tbh I'm not seeing where Wasps can get 2.4 million a year. Wasps had an operating loss of 4 million last year, and ACL lost 400k (even in a good year for ACL they make what about 600k-1 million profit?)

Where is the money coming to cover Wasps losses, pay off the debt and fund a winning team?

The interest is paid by the half of the bond borrowed .. I'd love to know where the are going to get £35 million in 7 years time .. Another bond issue probably



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Yes you are miscalculating... 6.8% is approximately 2.4 million a year in interest so about 17 million in total interest..

So including interest + debt Wasps have to find about 7.4 million a year then.

 

[skybluejelly]

So including interest + debt Wasps have to find about 7.4 million a year then.

Yep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Yep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't seem feasible to me

 

[James Smith]

They need to do some spectacular deal on the naming rights to help fund this then.

 

[Raggs]

Except it's not a like a repayment mortgage, they don't have to pay off the capital each year. In 6.5 years they either need to take out a bank loan for the amount or issue a new bond. They need to cover the interest, and do it convincingly enough for people to buy into another bond in 7 years time. 6.5% on £35m is £2.275M per year. The coucil loan would have made up over half that with it's 11% interest (£1.47m a year), and the other £14m of debt would have only have had to have been at 5.5% for that to cover the rest of the yearly spend of about £800k. I would guess that £14m was likely at least 6.5% itself.

 

[Raggs]

Not that odd, openly stated in my first post here that I was a wasps fan (from overseas no less). Try not to interfere that much, I'd guess most my posts have probably been trying to help clarify the chain of owners involved with wasps (not that I'm 100% sure of it, but relying on Rob Smiths work).

EDIT - Oh, I see we can delete posts, then just to clarify, this post was in response to Grendal saying it was odd that most my posts seem to be on the bond.

 

[Nick]

Not that odd, openly stated in my first post here that I was a wasps fan (from overseas no less). Try not to interfere that much, I'd guess most my posts have probably been trying to help clarify the chain of owners involved with wasps (not that I'm 100% sure of it, but relying on Rob Smiths work).

EDIT - Oh, I see we can delete posts, then just to clarify, this post was in response to Grendal saying it was odd that most my posts seem to be on the bond.

Why on earth on a ccfc forum?

 

[Raggs]

My first post here:

Hey fellas, overseas wasps supporter here. Been reading your forum for a few weeks now (nice to see opinions, thoughts etc). Been a few topics I've thought about answering to, but finally got around to registering.

The match on Sunday was LV cup, which is basically a development competition, usually it's academy players (2nds/3rd choice players) with a few seniors to help keep the patterns, which means much lower crowds. Wasps haven't exactly been getting massive crowds regardless, but 4k for LV cup isn't that bad considering.

No idea on how they'll do at the Ricoh. I suspect they'll be hoping to get a good number of general rugby supporters with no particular allegiances just wanting to see a live game at premiership level, if they play well enough, then the supporter might start getting a bit more involved with the team and become more of a fan.

 

[Grendel]

Not that odd, openly stated in my first post here that I was a wasps fan (from overseas no less). Try not to interfere that much, I'd guess most my posts have probably been trying to help clarify the chain of owners involved with wasps (not that I'm 100% sure of it, but relying on Rob Smiths work).

EDIT - Oh, I see we can delete posts, then just to clarify, this post was in response to Grendal saying it was odd that most my posts seem to be on the bond.

I meant it for Noggin. I have no problem with wasps fans on here. Your forum bans ccfc fans doesn't it?

 

[Raggs]

I meant it for Noggin. I have no problem with wasps fans on here. Your forum bans ccfc fans doesn't it?

Ah, that would make more sense, apologies for the misunderstanding. Our forum bans trolls (and even then reluctantly and slower than most would like), but I don't believe there's been any bannings of any kinds recently.

 

[Nick]

Ah, that would make more sense, apologies for the misunderstanding. Our forum bans trolls (and even then reluctantly and slower than most would like), but I don't believe there's been any bannings of any kinds recently.

What about people who sign up just to spam other clubs propaganda with no interest in your actual club?

 

[hutch1972]

The interest is paid by the half of the bond borrowed .. I'd love to know where the are going to get £35 million in 7 years time .. Another bond issue probably



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or contact M Mcindoe for a few ideas.

 

[Calista]

I just ignore the franchise side of it. It makes no sense to me. Lived in Ottawa for a while and they're a relatively new team, at least in the modern era, having joined the NHL in 92. Being in between Toronto and Montreal the majority of their fanbase are people who have switched from one of those teams.

Can't imagine doing that. There's even more bizarre situations. For example Winnipeg Jets. They moved in 96 and became Phoenix Coyotes, couldn't really have moved much further. Fast forward to 2011 and a completely different team, Atlanta Thrashers, moved and became Winnipeg Jets. I guess if you from North America that's just how it is and you're used to it.

I haven't lived in Coventry since 92 but could never support anyone else. Fratton Park is at the end of my road but the only time I've ever been, except to see us, was when there was an England Womens game there.

Judging by the reaction of some Wasps fans, who when they moved just went off and supported the next nearest team, I think it must just be a football fan thing.

I had the impression from your previous posts that relocating sports teams was an absolutely black and white moral issue, and that anyone who didn’t see it that way was either hypocritical or plain stupid.

Having just read this, I take it you now think it partly depends on the particular circumstances, the culture of the sport in question, and the attitude of the affected fans. Pretty much my view too.

 

[chiefdave]

I had the impression from your previous posts that relocating sports teams was an absolutely black and white moral issue, and that anyone who didn’t see it that way was either hypocritical or plain stupid.

Having just read this, I take it you now think it partly depends on the particular circumstances, the culture of the sport in question, and the attitude of the affected fans. Pretty much my view too.

Clearly if you're talking about US sports franchises you have to accept there is a risk they will move. Although it does tend to be failed expansion teams that move rather than those that have been established for many year. I imagine there would be uproar if they tried to move the Yankees from NY or the Bears from Chicago.

If you're talking about the UK then you have to look at the individual situation for different sports. If you're talking about professional sports such as football, rugby, cricket (sure there's more but none that spring to mind) then it is pretty much a black and white issue, they should not move. Clearly there will always be some grey areas. Man Utd not playing in Manchester for example, or if we moved to Ansty just a walk though an underpass from the city boundary. Then you have situations like Warwickshire, they were never really going to move from Edgbaston in 1974 when someone decided to create the West Midlands and remove them from the country from which they take their name. A bit of common sense needs to be applied. Temporary moves due to circumstance or moves just outside of boundaries in order to build facilities are a world away from moving 100 miles.

Some sports don't have the luxury of choice. Ice Hockey in the Uk being a prime example. I don't think there's a single club that owns its own rink or could afford to build one, if there is they are very much in the minority. They tend to have to locate to where the facilities are. The flip side of that is the smaller number of teams means the fanbase is generally drawn from a wider geographical area which would tend to make a move less traumatic. Of course there will always be differences between what supporters deem acceptable. I've seen people saying they would never go again if Blaze move to Birmingham (an odd rumour that has sprung up with no grounding in the reality of the situation), for me that's an odd stance when what became Blaze were formerly in Solihull and before that in Birmingham. I might be wrong but I think that when rebranding from Barons to Blaze, to coincide with a move to a higher tier of the game, the original plan was to be Birmingham Blaze and play at the NEC, the move to Coventry came about after that fell through.

 

[Calista]

Clearly if you're talking about US sports franchises you have to accept there is a risk they will move. Although it does tend to be failed expansion teams that move rather than those that have been established for many year. I imagine there would be uproar if they tried to move the Yankees from NY or the Bears from Chicago.

If you're talking about the UK then you have to look at the individual situation for different sports. If you're talking about professional sports such as football, rugby, cricket (sure there's more but none that spring to mind) then it is pretty much a black and white issue, they should not move. Clearly there will always be some grey areas. Man Utd not playing in Manchester for example, or if we moved to Ansty just a walk though an underpass from the city boundary. Then you have situations like Warwickshire, they were never really going to move from Edgbaston in 1974 when someone decided to create the West Midlands and remove them from the country from which they take their name. A bit of common sense needs to be applied. Temporary moves due to circumstance or moves just outside of boundaries in order to build facilities are a world away from moving 100 miles.

Some sports don't have the luxury of choice. Ice Hockey in the Uk being a prime example. I don't think there's a single club that owns its own rink or could afford to build one, if there is they are very much in the minority. They tend to have to locate to where the facilities are. The flip side of that is the smaller number of teams means the fanbase is generally drawn from a wider geographical area which would tend to make a move less traumatic. Of course there will always be differences between what supporters deem acceptable. I've seen people saying they would never go again if Blaze move to Birmingham (an odd rumour that has sprung up with no grounding in the reality of the situation), for me that's an odd stance when what became Blaze were formerly in Solihull and before that in Birmingham. I might be wrong but I think that when rebranding from Barons to Blaze, to coincide with a move to a higher tier of the game, the original plan was to be Birmingham Blaze and play at the NEC, the move to Coventry came about after that fell through.

All fair comments Chief – I wasn’t trying to box you into a corner or anything, just pointing out that maybe things are sometimes a bit more complex than you previously made out. I’ve already posted my genuine thoughts on Wasps (ad nauseam!), and clearly we won’t see eye-to-eye on that so I won’t keep spinning it out. PUSB.