Discussion in 'Wasps' started by chiefdave, May 12, 2018.
Home | The National Lottery
I've heard a slightly less optimistic version that they are looking at options for potentially selling parts of the business to raise short term cash. Not sure if this is to offset against the debt or to go towards any improvement projects, I'd guess the former but it could as easily be the latter baring in mind the debt isn't repayable until 2022? Is that right?
What elements of the Ricoh are up for sale, who knows and if someone wanted to pay the full valuation I guess they would snap their hands off as it would pay off the debt and probably allow a new stadium to be built elsewhere... That said who would pay what the valuation is so is it really up for sale.
Wouldn't the council have to give this the all clear. I can imagine our council doing a lot of dumb things but even they must have clauses in the lease to stop Wasps selling things on to third parties. Imagine if they break it up and sell chunks off to different people and then go bust or move elsewhere. The council aren't going to risk having to clear that mess up.
I was told that the Ricoh is up for sale and nothing mentioned about ‘parts of it’.
Indeed, Dave. I don't know how part or all of the arena itself could be sold because it would only be a sale of the lease. Selling ACL would possibly allow the lease to be transferred but I don't know enough about the legal/financial aspects of that.
Could the Council be selling the leasehold? Not sure what the value would be given that it has a 250yr lease already agreed. Unless someone wanted to hedge their bets that Wasps are on their way out and ACL ownership goes back to the leaseholder, but I'm not even sure that is certainly the case.
Surely it’s almost worthless if they sell up and move it only then has one tennant and our contract runs until the end of the season and we are not the easiest to deal with.
Anyone know where you can see the wasps attendance figures?
They’re difficult to get hold of. Wonder why...
15,400 for yesterday according to the CT.
v Exeter Chiefs 13,104
v Leicester Tigers 18,102
v Gloucester 15,400
Season average 15,535
It was actually 15,401 according to the official Premiership rugby site. The Cov Telegraph on their match report have it as 15,410. Wasps trying to inflate their attendances by 9 hoping no one will notice, crafty buggers.
So we have 3 different figures.
Live Match Updates
I compared the game to last season. Wasps vs Gloucester was 26k+ that was on the 23rd dec. This time last year they played bath and the attendance was 15488. It’s falling but not at an alarming rate.
26k to 16k is pretty alarming!
. It depends on how you look at it. From a commercial view they would compare the attendance year vs year. So that’s a loss of around 80. I know that year on year they are up against last year. However last year there was no big derby game so the figures look better than what there are. I think the attendance will be down on last year snd will continue dropping.
But I bet their aspirational target is around the 25k mark
Fair point but they're relying on growing revenue, yes they're not as reliant on attendances as CCFC but the fact they're flat lining at best is not good news for Wasps
The more important number is how many are sold. I was offered some frees for their European tie v Toulouse in December, would think the European games would be their big money spinner.
Somebody at work sadly went to see waspies on Saturday. There appraisal of the day was “Utterly bored out of my skin, soulless and no atmosphere at all.”
Oh apart from an embarrassing “wasps, wasps...wasps” faint chant
FYI cumulative totals for all the Aviva clubs.
The number of actual tickets sold has to only be a few thousand, surely?
Make of this what you will. Just compared Saracens & Wasps 2017 figures.
Ground capacity 10,000
Ave Attendance 9,400 (total Aviva attendances 2017-18 210,069)
Rugby related income £12.5m
Non Rugby Income £5.3m
Total wages £11.4m
Total staff 155
total players 55
Interest charges £20k
Loss for year £2.7m
Cashflow for year minus (£600K)
Senior debt £48m
Ground capacity 32609
Ave Attendance 19338 (total Aviva attendances 2017-18 194,046)
Rugby related income £16.1m
Non Rugby Income £17.3m
Total wages £17m
Total staff 206
total players 53
Interest charges £2.3m
Loss for year £3.8m
Cashflow for year minus (£1.1m)
Senior debt £48m
- wage costs are for the total operation of each company
What I take from that and given that Saracens are arguably the best team in the country, have a long term base etc, is.......
- Rugby in general finds it hard to finance itself
- wage costs are an obvious major problem for all clubs
- that even with a much smaller capacity (and presumably few free tickets) Saracens still generate £12.5m Rugby related income (think about the maths of that and apply same to Wasps)
- other sources of income away from Rugby are vital
- similar senior debt figures but Saracens benefit from not paying interest - still made 2.7m loss though
cant help thinking too many people focus on the free tickets so Wasps must be really in trouble conjecture....... the actual published figures do not point to massive problem for them in free ticket giveaways, in fact the assertion that it is all free tickets doesn't seem to be supported at all other than anecdotally. There has to be a sizeable number, or large percentage, of people paying. Otherwise where do they get the revenue declared from? Yes they have problems.....Cash flow in total yes, interest burden yes, wage costs yes.......
The Ricoh is too big for Wasps too I see. Not interested in watching them at all. The best atmosphere to be found is at City away games and Cov rugby home games. The barren nature of the concourses and the unnecessary high roof really make for a soulless experience at the Ricoh. It was made for 32000 attendances without doubt.
Rugby is going the same way as football financially though, the gap between those in the Prem and the REST is almost too big to bridge now and success will lie every season with the same handful of teams.
Thanks for the overview. Based on that summary the life support machine is officially well and truly switched on.
I work with a hardcore Tigers fan who went to a game a couple of weeks ago and said it cost him £42 for his ticket and he was sat near the corner. To sit near the half way line would have been £56. So I think they get a large proportion of the rugby income over a smaller proportion of events. Sports are always competing for funding and once money comes in and the sport has been sold to the devil of TV, agents come sniffing like rats around a drain pipe and that leads to player costs ever increasing. It seems that sports club ownership is a money pit in the vast majority of cases.
I always argue for Cov that having 32k isn't for day to day games it is to allow the opportunity to have a big gates for games such as play-off semi or the big FA cup games. Although agree that you need a minimum on 12-14k to generate any sort of atmosphere. If we were back in the Championship the Ricoh would certainly feel much more like the right size.
but in the scheme of things so far, it doesn't seem to be any more so than for most sports teams (outside the Premier League) so it doesn't raise further any particular hope in my opinion of it all benefiting CCFC or CRFC. Most teams rely on the goodwill of creditors, investors and owners including Wasps, CCFC & CRFC (the financials of all three are weak & vulnerable) most sports teams struggle with increasing wage costs and insufficient income...... and that is what is going on here.
Wonder what will happen when at some point in the future they get a new owner. For other rugby clubs that had moved from the capital it has been the signal for them to return.
Do most teams raise finance on the retail bond market?
Can someone ask Brentford if they'll take them off our hands.
No but most teams raise finance ........... whether it be owner loans (secured or not), loans from private equity funds, bank loans, other forms of loans or retail bonds ............ the bottom line is that they all appear as liabilities on the balance sheet and are all legally due for repayment
only time will tell CD
I'm sure I've asked this before (and I can't be bothered to check) but why would someone like Wasps have chosen to raise capital via retail bonds as opposed to arranging a commercial mortgage against the stadium, which would have almost certainly offered lower interest rates? Would it be likely that banks/finance houses weren't interested and they had to turn to bonds as a second choice, or is there other rationale behind the decision?
Imagine fiddling documents to mislead a bank or a finance house....
should imagine it had something to do with not having to make monthly payments of around £450k per month to clear £35m over 7 years even at a low 2.5% interest rate. To match the current interest payment alone even getting a mortgage at 2.5% would take 18 years to repay.............. and when they floated the bond the level of risk was reasonably high (it hasnt got any lower - arguably its higher after the last audit). Spread the risk amongst lots of people some of whom were fans can make sense, and they didnt have the monthly cash flow and still dont
But at the end of it they will still have a £35m bill to pay. This is akin to taking an interest-only mortgage on the basis that it is cheaper month-to-month, only in property investment there is sufficient profit generated to eat away at the capital amount still owing. With the model they have opted for, they have the choice to re-run their bonds on expiry (continuing their interest-only 'mortgage' having paid off very little - if any - of the capital) or they refinance into a commercial mortgage.
With the terms you've proposed there, I personally think it would be insanity to opt for their bond method when they can clear the capital on a repayment-based mortgage within 20 years. They had a 250 year lease at the outset, and that could have been unencumbered for 230. There is absolutely no long-term strategy behind their thinking if what you are saying is correct. Unless of course I am missing something...
Separate names with a comma.