some answers from Wasps via the CT
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-pay-out-1m-investors-12161220
Cant believe Simon Gilbert didn't ask the direct question regarding the lease valuation though
Indirectly answered by the assurance that the auditors and bond trustees are happy with what has been disclosed
Are you comfortable that you’ve met all necessary commitments to bondholders?
“100 per cent. Auditors are required to review that as part of their audit process as is the bond trustee and both of them are entirely happy as well.”
Has there been any contact from the Financial Conduct Authority or the Financial Ombudsman?
“No. Of course not. None whatsoever.”
Wasps pay out £1m to investors in £35million bonds scheme
The Premiership Rugby club and Ricoh Arena operator continues to meet its commitments to bond holders
What’s the situation with securing a naming rights sponsor?
“That’s a big story when it happens. The process is ongoing and there a number of commercially confidential conversations taking place.
If that was Tim Fisher.....
That's unbelievable. He's had people giving him stick for immediately defending Wasps and rubbishing the idea they needed a valuation and yet when he has the chance to ask a direct question he bottles it. How hard is it just to say your prospectus says there must be a valuation by June, there is no indication this has happened, why not?Cant believe Simon Gilbert didn't ask the direct question regarding the lease valuation though
That's unbelievable. He's had people giving him stick for immediately defending Wasps and rubbishing the idea they needed a valuation and yet when he has the chance to ask a direct question he bottles it. How hard is it just to say your prospectus says there must be a valuation by June, there is no indication this has happened, why not?
If that was Tim Fisher.....
...it would only end one way. Proved to be nonsense. As has repeatedly happened with FOI's.
The only difference is that it will eventually happen.If that was Tim Fisher.....
The only difference is that it will eventually happen.
When TF says it, it never happens.
Big difference (unless you believe him of course ?)
I was answering the Stadium Sponsorship query.The valuation will eventually happen?
You would hope so, but that isn't the question.
The question was "did it happen".
The valuation will eventually happen?
You would hope so, but that isn't the question.
The question was "did it happen".
You just backed his point up.
So every time TF has used the confidentiality line it hasn't been proved to be less than honest? Is that the pount? There's absolutely no point saying "if that was TF..." TF has made a rod for his own back on this score. Why you would pretend he hasn't by saying "if that was TF..." is beyond me. Unless the point is that you believe everything that TF has said despite the FOI's proving otherwise. Is that what the point is and I missed it?
So every time TF has used the confidentiality line it hasn't been proved to be less than honest? Is that the point? There's absolutely no point saying "if that was TF..." TF has made a rod for his own back on this score. Why you would pretend he hasn't by saying "if that was TF..." is beyond me. Unless the point is that you believe everything that TF has said despite the FOI's proving otherwise. Is that what the point is and I missed it?
I reckon they must set the Telegraph homepage just for me, it's as if only I can see it branded as Wasps.
Where's your adblocker, man!
This reads as a Wasps PR piece to me. This is the headline:
Or was there a valuation but it did not give the figure they wanted so it was never finalised?Wrong, the question you meant to ask is "was the promised valuation cancelled because it would have shown the terms of the bond were not being met".
The only difference is that it will eventually happen.
When TF says it, it never happens.
Big difference (unless you believe him of course ?)
If that was Tim Fisher.....
The auditors from a professional/technical angle would have had to assess the lease value, from various directions
Surely Auditors are not valuers, They can only assess the information put before them, the people who gave it and other pertinent information. Then consider if the result is reasonable based on the assumptions but they cannot "value" the lease
I find it amazing that there has been no variation in the numbers used in 2015 which gives rise to the same figure more than a year later. Did they forecast a loss for 2016 in 2015 - they did not say so ?
And of course, they are not meant to be Bloodhounds
.
Indeed but to me the more the question is avoid the more it looks like theres something to hide. If, as soon as it came up, Wasps had said 'it's not due until a later date' or 'the bond trustee had one done and is happy with it but its confidential' then a lot of the questions go away. When they say nothing and the CT, despite being requested, refuse to ask the question, it can give the impression something is being hidden.Just because Wasps choose not to explain further doesn't make them wrong.
Indeed but to me the more the question is avoid the more it looks like theres something to hide. If, as soon as it came up, Wasps had said 'it's not due until a later date' or 'the bond trustee had one done and is happy with it but its confidential' then a lot of the questions go away. When they say nothing and the CT, despite being requested, refuse to ask the question, it can give the impression something is being hidden.
that would be why I say said assess the value not value it.
Well they had the information and agreed that the value had not been impaired in their opinion.
Why one years losses, which were a £1m or so more than expected, would make such a material difference over a period of 12 months to a long term lease valued on the basis of projected long term income streams and turnover levels (rising at that ) I am not sure. It wasn't valued on net results
I am guessing you have some accountancy or audit background?
That's unbelievable.
No, the point is dig up stuff and follow stuff up about all of them...
Instead, it gets left. The same as the Council Leader and the "condition that it wont harm CCFC" stuff.
It's the tin foil hat stuff you go on about so muchI reckon they must set the Telegraph homepage just for me, it's as if only I can see it branded as Wasps.
the only deal to survive relies on a long term deal with Wasps.
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.
I suspect someone's worried about his bonds
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
..... and the reasoning behind the delays in achieving it !!He also keeps saying the stadium sponsorship is sorted
..... and the reasoning behind the delays in achieving it !!
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.
I suspect someone's worried about his bonds
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
You'll have to take my word for it, particularly as your only evidence is wishful thinking ?Which are fictional.
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?