From bondholders forum
Same as 1bolivar, I have been following the board for months but did not have much to contribute. I hold quite a substantial amount (though not as much as Ozzie) so I registered with the trustees and re-joined FB to be able to stay in touch with the group. Like everyone else, I knew the risk of the bond when I bought it at launch but it was nothing as risky as mini bonds. It was a regulated and listed bond with a stadium as a collateral. Unlike many savvy investors on this board I invested all my holding at par which means that I am probably set out to lose the most. Greed did not come into play here. This was redundancy money I invested for my children, being a single mum of 3.
She will at least have had some interest payments way over what she'd have had in a bank account, so she has had some back already of course.I've got some sympathy here, but even at the time a relatively small amount of research would have made it evident that there was always a level of risk in these bonds. Putting everything in this pot wasn't really a great choice.
That said, I genuinely hope she gets some of it back.
The stadium and the p-shares have some value and if the bond holders act quickly enough I think they can recover at least something. The longer it goes on though, the more I can see the owners protecting themselves at the expense of the bondholders.
She will at least have had some interest payments way over what she'd have had in a bank account, so she has had some back already of course.
I've got some sympathy here, but even at the time a relatively small amount of research would have made it evident that there was always a level of risk in these bonds. Putting everything in this pot wasn't really a great choice.
That said, I genuinely hope she gets some of it back.
The stadium and the p-shares have some value and if the bond holders act quickly enough I think they can recover at least something. The longer it goes on though, the more I can see the owners protecting themselves at the expense of the bondholders.
Interesting you mention Pshares
There is no charge on the shares but on the proceeds of sale
WASPs received £14m from a deal relating to the shareholding but the monies did not go to the Bondholders.fit
She will at least have had some interest payments way over what she'd have had in a bank account, so she has had some back already of course.
They don’t really own it do they? It’ll eventually be taken off them in the end when the bond holders eventually group together and take the ground back off them.This is what annoys me about the revisionists on their forum. They bleat about the council bailing us out on the building of the Ricoh, when they haven't put a penny towards their purchase of the ground. The bond holders paid for it!
And while I'm on, where's the CVC money gone, eh? As much as they say lovely old rugby man Richardson loves Wasps, I bet the only person who doesn't lose out on all this is himself...
They don’t really own it do they? It’ll eventually be taken off them in the end when the bond holders eventually group together and take the ground back off them.
They don’t really own it do they? It’ll eventually be taken off them in the end when the bond holders eventually group together and take the ground back off them.
The reason I posted that from the bondholders forum was because Liquid Gold had said “The second funniest thing behind Wasps going bust would be all the people that bankrolled their franchising losing all their money.” I felt that was a pretty cruel and unkind thing to say.It's not such a good deal if you've lost all of your principal though, and it's the only pot you've used for your investments. I have sympathy, but I'm not sure everyone who piled into the bonds really understood the risk.
The reason I posted that from the bondholders forum was because Liquid Gold had said “The second funniest thing behind Wasps going bust would be all the people that bankrolled their franchising losing all their money.” I felt that was a pretty cruel and unkind thing to say.
The bondholders, other than Wasps fans, had no interest in supporting Wasps franchising. The bonds were released after the event. Some holders seem to be professional investors, others ordinary people who saw an opportunity to make a reasonable, above inflation, return on their nest eggs. They all believed it was an investment, not without some risk, but secured against the stadium. Whether they understood that the 250 year lease was not necessarily that secure given the arrangement that it would return to CCC if Wasps went bust is another matter. The bondholders are certainly getting jittery now as they become(quote) “aware of the issues, injustices, sharp practices which WF are foisting on what should have been perfectly healthy, normal 'deal'”.
Wasps fans seem unable to acknowledge just how close they are sailing to the wind, their reputation in the financial markets must be shattered. If their credit rating is as poor as suggested elsewhere (in relation to the pitch), it’s little wonder they have been unable to refinance elsewhere.
Wasps had £35m from bondholders, £14m from the CVC deal and probably £10m in Covid support and are still in the financial shit. They could still be relegated if insolvency was unavoidable in May. If they fail to come up with something to satisfy the bondholders, that would be a reasonable conclusion to come to.
Love to know how much they've had overall, it's an absolute money pit and they have nothing to show for itDon't forget Compass, Delaware North, DCMS and Government support loans
Also the training ground which they no longer ownDon't forget Compass, Delaware North, DCMS and Government support loans
I can acknowledge that that person, on an individual case, I can feel sorry for.The reason I posted that from the bondholders forum was because Liquid Gold had said “The second funniest thing behind Wasps going bust would be all the people that bankrolled their franchising losing all their money.” I felt that was a pretty cruel and unkind thing to say.
The bondholders, other than Wasps fans, had no interest in supporting Wasps franchising. The bonds were released after the event. Some holders seem to be professional investors, others ordinary people who saw an opportunity to make a reasonable, above inflation, return on their nest eggs. They all believed it was an investment, not without some risk, but secured against the stadium. Whether they understood that the 250 year lease was not necessarily that secure given the arrangement that it would return to CCC if Wasps went bust is another matter. The bondholders are certainly getting jittery now as they become(quote) “aware of the issues, injustices, sharp practices which WF are foisting on what should have been perfectly healthy, normal 'deal'”.
Wasps fans seem unable to acknowledge just how close they are sailing to the wind, their reputation in the financial markets must be shattered. If their credit rating is as poor as suggested elsewhere (in relation to the pitch), it’s little wonder they have been unable to refinance elsewhere.
Wasps had £35m from bondholders, £14m from the CVC deal and probably £10m in Covid support and are still in the financial shit. They could still be relegated if insolvency was unavoidable in May. If they fail to come up with something to satisfy the bondholders, that would be a reasonable conclusion to come to.
I can acknowledge that that person, on an individual case, I can feel sorry for.
It does prove however the old adage that if something is too good to be true, it probably is! The returns way above anything else should have had alarm bells ringing, really.
You'd acknowledge the 6.5% was a somewhat... high return compared to standard investments however. And the higher return is always because there's more risk attached to it. Nothing wrong with the occasional risky investment, but all eggs in one basket is asking for trouble.This is the only retail bond that would default in stock market history.
You'd acknowledge the 6.5% was a somewhat... high return compared to standard investments however. And the higher return is always because there's more risk attached to it. Nothing wrong with the occasional risky investment, but all eggs in one basket is asking for trouble.
To be clear, individual circumstance can not want me to have that person destitute as a result! But it is a cautionary tale about looking at headline figures and going all-in.
(on that note, time to see how much of my investment Funding Circle have managed to wrench back from businesses)
Should always look into what you're investing in, and never invest more than you can afford to lose, really.I have no idea what rates were then on these bonds but it had a lot of publicity which gave it legitimacy
Wasps rugby union club launches £35m bond - BBC News
Leading English rugby union club Wasps, which plays at Coventry's Ricoh Stadium, is launching a seven-year bond as it aims to raise £25m to £35m.www.bbc.co.uk
Which they never did own. Despite Vaughan saying it would be totally owned by Wasps. Wasps supporters seem to think being lied to is perfectly OK. Perhaps they are used to it.Also the training ground which they no longer own
I don’t think 6.5% was exceptional at the time. The security (the stadium) was certainly an attraction..I have no idea what rates were then on these bonds but it had a lot of publicity which gave it legitimacy
Wasps rugby union club launches £35m bond - BBC News
Leading English rugby union club Wasps, which plays at Coventry's Ricoh Stadium, is launching a seven-year bond as it aims to raise £25m to £35m.www.bbc.co.uk
I don’t think 6.5% was exceptional at the time. The security (the stadium) was certainly an attraction..
I’m sure you will have seen bondholders suggest that interest of 13 to 20% would need to be offered now to reflect the current perceived risk.
Intereatingly (or not!) there were 17,000 bonds traded at 48% of nominal value on 12 Novenber 2020. Wonder who bought them?
Also the training ground which they no longer own
All fine except there doesn't seem a way to exit ,so not tight enough regulation if that can legitimately happen.Should always look into what you're investing in, and never invest more than you can afford to lose, really.
I mean, I gambled high on spunking my cash away on bank shares during the 2008 fnancial crash, but there was no way I'd have put all my savings into them, as that was a surefire way to end up homeless if it all went wrong!
I’m still waiting for car park C to be turned in to a flying car airport !
Yeah wasn't it just something on display?It was demonstrated opposite the railway station on that car park
And a flying demoYeah wasn't it just something on display?
Where did it fly toAnd a flying demo
Where did it fly to
Harry Styles booked in for next May, problems solved let the bond holders know.
Don't think it's a huge amount - some rent, parking (most of Styles' fans aren't old enough to drive) and F&B (not sure what the F&B % is)Doesn't the area make barely any money for concerts ?
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?