so looking at that (ball park figures)
the original deal at 5% over 41 years earnt CCC 19.5m over the term (repayment at 827k pa)
To achieve that over 20 yrs and taking in to account the initial £1m down payment equates to an interest APR 11.35% (repayment 1.7m pa). To achieve 19.5m interest over a shorter term
loan calculator here http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1633405/Loan-repayment-calculator.html
For the benefit of clarity OSB how does that 11.35% compare to the interest on the original bank loan that CCC took over?
so looking at that (ball park figures)
the original deal at 5% over 41 years earnt CCC 19.5m over the term (repayment at 827k pa)
To achieve that over 20 yrs and taking in to account the initial £1m down payment equates to an interest APR 11.35% (repayment 1.7m pa). To achieve 19.5m interest over a shorter term
loan calculator here http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1633405/Loan-repayment-calculator.html
Didn't think you were interested Tony?
1. it is interesting against the original acl rent fee of 1.9m per year.
2. surprising that Wasps can't refinance this loan at a better rate with a commercial lender. ir may be that is their intention.
so looking at that (ball park figures)
the original deal at 5% over 41 years earnt CCC 19.5m over the term (repayment at 827k pa)
To achieve that over 20 yrs and taking in to account the initial £1m down payment equates to an interest APR 11.35% (repayment 1.7m pa). To achieve 19.5m interest over a shorter term
loan calculator here http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1633405/Loan-repayment-calculator.html
For me the two over riding conclusions are A, The council look like they have acted in the best interest of getting the loan repaid in half the time while still earning the same amount for the public purse and B, I wish our owners had the same forethought as the owners of Wasps to do the deal in the first place. Plain fact from the councils point of view is that they probably thought they had no chance of doing a deal with Sisu because of their actions and conduct. I would like to see where Les Reid will find the new smoking gun now or will hell freeze over first? PUSB
For the benefit of clarity OSB how does that 11.35% compare to the interest on the original bank loan that CCC took over?
1. it is interesting against the original acl rent fee of 1.9m per year.
2. surprising that Wasps can't refinance this loan at a better rate with a commercial lender. ir may be that is their intention.
Do a deal to effectively increase the rent outgoing to £1.7m all because of the council making a complete hash of its loans to ACL from day one?
the point was that the original 1.9m was to allow the council to pay the loan.acl then took out the loan to pay the lump sum which was reportedly costing them 1.7m per year with a commercial lender. now the acl is still at 1.7m a year over slightly longer time frame with the council acting as the lender. somewhere diwn the line isn't acl worse off now than it was 2 years ago particularly as it has also had to pay a lump sum of 1 million?ACL paid £21m up front financed by a mortgage from Yorkshire Bank rather than playing £1.9m for 50 years.
ACL paid £21m up front financed by a mortgage from Yorkshire Bank rather than playing £1.9m for 50 years.
Would be interesting to see the state of The Ricoh in 250 years time it already looks like a dump and was finished in a rush.
Really ?
Can't really disagree with Fisher in saying he wouldn't want to buy into that. It might not help a state aid case but would surely give rise to SISU sitting tight for a while yet.
The Yorkshire Bank loan was at a rate of 1.265% above Libor but they also hedged the interest rate so it is not a straightforward calculation. Overall it looks like the rate was something like 6.6% (done by taking interest as a percentage of the average loan outstanding) but that's very rough and ready so I wouldn't swear to it
Straight question: What happens to the loan if Wasps subsequently goes bust?
The council said that they wouldn't risk taxpayers' money by making loans to loss making operations, but as it turns out they did in both the original deal to ACL, and seemingly now again in this refinancing.
Maybe the reason Wasps have taken this loan on from the council is that they cannot obtain third-party finance to the tune of £14.4m given what a poor risk their business represents. It's a bit early to claim this is a good deal for the council, I'd say, especially if they're going to be on the hook if Wasps go bust.
How do you work that out, Sisu were originally offered a deal over a longer period plus you would get the benefits of the associated income streams or am I missing something?
When you say "sitting tight for a while" do you mean sitting tight for 250years?
In addition, “super rent” was payable, based on ACL’s net profit before tax, of 10% on profits over £3.75m rising to 50% of profits over £7.75m.
The detail in the deal I would like to know is does this still apply or was this subject to one of the modifications ?
Thanks OSB.
So why wouldn't Wasps go out and get a commercial loan over a longer period of time, end up still paying the same amount but over a longer period reducing their annual overheads? Surely a 250year lease is good security to obtain a loan? I can't really see why they wouldn't take that route.
That's an open question by the way. Not specifically aimed at OSB.
Really ?
Not sure If my maths are accurate
The best rent offer to the Club while maintaining the Status Quo was £400k
Possibly in Itself stressing ACL at that level
We are now paying circa £100k
Unless Wasps invigorate ACL to become far more successful in its secondary operations
we may find ourselves facing a rent hike or homeless as I can't see them subsidising us at their own expense
no paying the lease premium removed all rental obligations. that was in some council minutes i found years ago.In addition, “super rent” was payable, based on ACL’s net profit before tax, of 10% on profits over £3.75m rising to 50% of profits over £7.75m.
The detail in the deal I would like to know is does this still apply or was this subject to one of the modifications ?
no paying the lease premium removed all rental obligations. that was in some council minutes i found years ago.
Indeed. We don't know how Wasps raised the other £5m to purchase the lease or how they turn around £3m losses. Neither do we know how they repay loans from Richardson.
Do we foresee another rent strike in the event that the rent is increased?
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?