Wasps losses and ricoh return catalyst (1 Viewer)

[Speedies_Chips]

Theyve got a ten year tenancy. That’s an asset.

Not so sure about that. I think you will find having a tenant signed up for 10 years counts as an asset for Wasps.

 

---

[Greggs]

In the last financial statements well under £400k. However if sold for residential development it should be worth a fair bit more. Fisher suggested previously a figure under 2m for such a disposal I think

You can't buy a house in Canley for that!? Surely it's worth 7 figures.

 

[oldskyblue58]

You can't buy a house in Canley for that!? Surely it's worth 7 figures.

It's not my valuation it is the clubs and confirmed by the Auditors in the last accounts. It is based on the current of the site which is a sports field with a relatively small two storey building, for sports use. If it were residential it would have a much greater value.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Not so sure about that. I think you will find having a tenant signed up for 10 years counts as an asset for Wasps.

The fact that they have a 10 year agreement and therefore stability would add to overall value of otium without showing in the balance sheet. Should they look to sell.

 

[oldskyblue58]

But football is the 'business' of the club. Hence the decisions based around the football side of it are the business decisions.

Of course you can argue their main aim is to reclaim their capital and interest to get their return on investment, but we've been down this road before. It didn't work. We ended up in L2 and that massively reduced our income on all levels - TV/prize money/gate receipts/transfer fees received. That affects the ability of the owners to take their money out.

The club have been more successful the last few years and developed some players they've been able to sell on for good fees. But that's not guaranteed to continue and the more they take in terms of interest the more it infringes the ability to keep on doing so. After we sold Dann etc we spent years relying on frees and kids and we made very little in terms of transfer fees on many of those players. They took the short term profits on the players and then ended up spending years having to cover losses. If we're not careful that could well be repeated again.

It isnt sisu's business though - not sure I can make it any clearer. They are fund managers with a responsibility to extract profits and gains for their investors. Ccfc is and always has been secondary to that.

You keep referring to Dann and Fox but the club operates in a completely different manner now.
We no longer pay 120% of turnover as wages.
The Owners no longer throw money at the team
The owners are directly involved in the club finances & decisions.
Seppala is very much hands on unlike 2009 where it was left to a succession of clowns
We operate the team on a self financing basis. We live within our means
We no longer make multi million pound losses
We have cut overheads and back room staff
The owners are able to extract significant funds and operate the club at break even.

I could go on but you get the picture. It is chalk and cheese. What the owners are doing with the club now is nothing like what existed in 2009 and to base your fears for the club on that period is mistaken

Like it or not the evidence is that the owners are looking to extract funds, and so far since 2018 it hasn't gone too bad for them or us.

It doesn't get paid physically unless the money is available, which must mean we have spent to budget available first.

They are not looking to bust the club, it just doesn't make any sense to do so. Why? Because it would stop their income streams. The owners are a lot of things but they are not stupid.

Bottom line is we need to get to the stage where the loan and interest debt is paid off because it stops 2m (and rising if not paid) of interest being accrued each year - dead money from the teams point of view. The investors want a return, their end game if they don't get it could be to pull the plug entirely. None of us want that.

 

[Gregbant]

So are you guys saying their aim is to break even, then anything above even goes to clear interest on debts and eventually debt itself?

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

So are you guys saying their aim is to break even, then anything above even goes to clear interest on debts and eventually debt itself?

Well, how else do you expect to pay off the debt?

 

[Gregbant]

Well, how else do you expect to pay off the debt?

I was asking Oldskyblue and Grendel if that is what they were saying they thought SISU's plan was, maybe I should have replied directly to them?

 

[bawtryneal]

So how much will it take in hard cash to get this lot to sell and piss off ?

And replace them with whom ??

 

[Magwitch1]

And replace them with whom ??

A consortium of local business men.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

A consortium of local business men.

Is there any local businessmen with the capital to maintain a championship football club?

I mean there’s Richard Overson, who is already involved.

I’m guessing the long term plan is to recoup the losses and hand over to him maybe?

 

[fernandopartridge]

A consortium of local business men.

Yeah, like Geoffrey Robinson, Joe Elliott, Mike McGinnity etc.

 

[chiefdave]

How many teams in England have local businessmen as owners these days? We seem to be long past that and onto people who can happily chuck away £10m plus every season.

 

[Magwitch1]

Let’s wait and see, you never know

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Is there any local businessmen with the capital to maintain a championship football club?

A bit like football managers, it's not our role to nominate them.

What's plainly obvious is that in an open market, you'd have more option than just a Hoffman-led version. We've never had the open market however - probably never will.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

A bit like football managers, it's not our role to nominate them.

What's plainly obvious is that in an open market, you'd have more option than just a Hoffman-led version. We've never had the open market however - probably never will.

You can discuss football managers though and offer an opinion as to who would take the job. Multi millionaires local to Coventry are a bit rarer

 

[bawtryneal]

Let’s wait and see, you never know

You might have a long wait.

 

[bawtryneal]

Have you heard the joke about how do you become a millionaire.
Start of with a billion and then buy a football team.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Multi millionaires local to Coventry are a bit rarer

They tend not to frequent my social circles, either.

Frankie Muniz said he was a Coventry fan, maybe he'd like to set up a consortium with Brian McFadden.

 

[Gregbant]

What about Derek Richardson he owns a stadium in Cov and is using it in a manner that is not fit for purpose. Jump from one hedge fund to another but this one pretty much owns the Stadium albeit a really long lease.

 

[Nick]

What about Derek Richardson he owns a stadium in Cov and is using it in a manner that is not fit for purpose. Jump from one hedge fund to another but this one pretty much owns the Stadium albeit a really long lease.

Italia?

 

[Grendel]

Italia?

Could be it’s someone who posted on here as someone else that’s for sure

 

[fernandopartridge]

Could be it’s someone who posted on here as someone else that’s for sure

Multiple personas

 

[chiefdave]

What about Derek Richardson he owns a stadium in Cov and is using it in a manner that is not fit for purpose. Jump from one hedge fund to another but this one pretty much owns the Stadium albeit a really long lease.

Variation on the theme. If one of our supporters suddenly became a billionaire and was happy to chuck money at the club you could buy Wasps, then buy CCFC and either flip Wasps to someone who actually wanted to own them or just make them run self sufficiently. Would be the quickest route to stadium ownership.

Nobody is going to throw that sort of money at us through.

 

[SBT]

Multiple personas

Is there anyone on here that isn't actually someone's burner account? Starting to question my own reality here.

 

[Samo]

Is there anyone on here that isn't actually someone's burner account? Starting to question my own reality here.

Just me, just one account, never had another one, I'm reasonably certain I exist

 

[oldskyblue58]

What about Derek Richardson he owns a stadium in Cov and is using it in a manner that is not fit for purpose. Jump from one hedge fund to another but this one pretty much owns the Stadium albeit a really long lease.

Not a chance for so many reasons. But a few......

- He is rich but not that rich - he would still have to pay for the purchase and fund the club
- "not fit for purpose" ? a sports stadium with events halls etc that is putting on sport and events?. It hasnt been successful because of the cost of the wages for professional sport there. The events side doesnt make big losses
- he would need to find millions to buy CCFC
- is he even interested in CCFC other than as a paying tenant

but most importantly
- CCFC isnt for sale right now to anyone because SISU have yet to max out the extraction of funds
- most CCFC fans would absolutely hate being owned by wasps

 

[oldskyblue58]

So are you guys saying their aim is to break even, then anything above even goes to clear interest on debts and eventually debt itself?

sort of ...... it will be their choice whether to extract all or just part of surplus cash. It is the cash flow that is important not the profit on P&L account in this respect

 

[bawtryneal]

sort of ...... it will be their choice whether to extract all or just part of surplus cash. It is the cash flow that is important not the profit on P&L account in this respect

Exactly !!

 

[Gregbant]

Italia?

90?

 

[Gregbant]

Not a chance for so many reasons. But a few......

- He is rich but not that rich - he would still have to pay for the purchase and fund the club
- "not fit for purpose" ? a sports stadium with events halls etc that is putting on sport and events?. It hasnt been successful because of the cost of the wages for professional sport there. The events side doesnt make big losses
- he would need to find millions to buy CCFC
- is he even interested in CCFC other than as a paying tenant

but most importantly
- CCFC isnt for sale right now to anyone because SISU have yet to max out the extraction of funds
- most CCFC fans would absolutely hate being owned by wasps

Can't argue with 99% of what you say because mostly I don't understand it. . Thank you though.

I know Richardson isn't actually that rich, what is it 60 million. (not including his debts). Pointless me saying the next bit because it won't happen anyway but we wouldn't be owned by Wasps. We would be owned by the man who owns Wasps, the sentiment would be the same maybe, but if the club was successful people would attend regardless in my opinion we are a very fickle bunch.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Can't argue with 99% of what you say because mostly I don't understand it. . Thank you though.

I know Richardson isn't actually that rich, what is it 60 million. (not including his debts). Pointless me saying the next bit because it won't happen anyway but we wouldn't be owned by Wasps. We would be owned by the man who owns Wasps, the sentiment would be the same maybe, but if the club was successful people would attend regardless in my opinion we are a very fickle bunch.

That last line is why I think the crowds would
Have surprised people at St Andrews if Covid wasn’t a thing this season

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It isnt sisu's business though - not sure I can make it any clearer. They are fund managers with a responsibility to extract profits and gains for their investors. Ccfc is and always has been secondary to that.

I'll just concentrate on this.

SISU's business is to get gains for their investors. I know that CCFC is inconsequential to them apart from what it makes their investors. What I'm saying is that doing this plan with CCFC is in fact going to be detrimental to the aim of investors returns overall and IMO they'll end up having to put more in that they take out if they persist with it - in other words taking money from their investors rather than returning it.

They take out small amounts of interest now for their investors, but that affects the clubs ability (i.e. their investment) to maintain it's income streams and thus the ability to take further money out for their investors in future to get them their desired return. Before you know they're having to pump money back in rather than take it out because the club isn't earning enough money to be sustainable. They're only able to do it now because of player sales and they seem to be working on the assumption that'll continue - they should know from previous experience that's not always the case.

Perhaps they're thinking that by putting the club in such a poor financial situation before it was forced to bring through academy players, a couple of whom we managed to sell for a decent amount so if we do that again the outcome will be the same?

The obvious answer is to divest their holding, but they can't do that because they'll never sell if for enough to cover the capital and interest required to make the returns their investors desire. The only way they've got a hope in hells chance of getting the required return is PL promotion.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I'll just concentrate on this.

SISU's business is to get gains for their investors. I know that CCFC is inconsequential to them apart from what it makes their investors. What I'm saying is that doing this plan with CCFC is in fact going to be detrimental to the aim of investors returns overall and IMO they'll end up having to put more in that they take out if they persist with it - in other words taking money from their investors rather than returning it.

They take out small amounts of interest now for their investors, but that affects the clubs ability (i.e. their investment) to maintain it's income streams and thus the ability to take further money out for their investors in future to get them their desired return. Before you know they're having to pump money back in rather than take it out because the club isn't earning enough money to be sustainable. They're only able to do it now because of player sales and they seem to be working on the assumption that'll continue - they should know from previous experience that's not always the case.

Perhaps they're thinking that by putting the club in such a poor financial situation before it was forced to bring through academy players, a couple of whom we managed to sell for a decent amount so if we do that again the outcome will be the same?

The obvious answer is to divest their holding, but they can't do that because they'll never sell if for enough to cover the capital and interest required to make the returns their investors desire. The only way they've got a hope in hells chance of getting the required return is PL promotion.

Entitled to your opinion of course. I just dont agree.

These are not "normal" football club owners. There is some tough hard fiscal budgeting going on with little leeway. They don't do anything on a whim or for ego...it is hard cold finance

Since 2015 sisu have made loans to otium of 1.53m they have extracted in hard cash 620k capital and 1.52m interest.

Subject to the 2020 accounts they have extracted more cash than has been put in by 600k during that time . And in that time the club has been promoted twice, the squad is worth more, the club has some immediate and medium term stability, the value of their investment has gone up.

They don't take anything unless the cash is available after meeting the day to day operational needs. But equally as far as we know they are not looking to invest any significant amounts. last loan was in 2018 accounts 500k The owners will only invest more money if there is a short term cash flow need. That is to ensure day to day bills get paid not to buy players. The club has to finance itself.

The club is allowed to find it's own level in the league. Relegation is not aimed for but it doesn't carry any fear for them, they just cut costs and push forward again.

There might not be player sales some years but that is not what they are trying to achieve. The owners expect there will be, that is model we operate under. They will take cash when it is available once the budget has been financed, I expect there is very little flex in that budget

Have they put the club in a deteriorating financial position?. To begin with, which meant getting rid of deadwood, but since 2015 it is hard to argue a worsening position. it has been quite positive and they took 2m back at the same time. So with things progressing positively why would they put unnecessary risk on ccfc to cause the carnage you fear.... (that is not saying no risk)

Actually the "obvious answer" would in my opinion not be the correct sisu one. Given they have proven extraction is possible and at the same time playing success why would they look to sell. The financial risk, it is where they make their money.

Given the finance available a return to the prem is complete fantasy and a far more risky investment strategy than selling players.

To max out their return they have to pay down the interest and loans...... then sell the club

With that I am going to draw a line under this. I suspect we are never going to see it the same way. Its Bank Holiday and am going to enjoy some hard earned rest. Have a happy Easter

 

[Gregbant]

I'll just concentrate on this.

SISU's business is to get gains for their investors. I know that CCFC is inconsequential to them apart from what it makes their investors. What I'm saying is that doing this plan with CCFC is in fact going to be detrimental to the aim of investors returns overall and IMO they'll end up having to put more in that they take out if they persist with it - in other words taking money from their investors rather than returning it.

They take out small amounts of interest now for their investors, but that affects the clubs ability (i.e. their investment) to maintain it's income streams and thus the ability to take further money out for their investors in future to get them their desired return. Before you know they're having to pump money back in rather than take it out because the club isn't earning enough money to be sustainable. They're only able to do it now because of player sales and they seem to be working on the assumption that'll continue - they should know from previous experience that's not always the case.

Perhaps they're thinking that by putting the club in such a poor financial situation before it was forced to bring through academy players, a couple of whom we managed to sell for a decent amount so if we do that again the outcome will be the same?

The obvious answer is to divest their holding, but they can't do that because they'll never sell if for enough to cover the capital and interest required to make the returns their investors desire. The only way they've got a hope in hells chance of getting the required return is PL promotion.

I so wish that last paragraph is correct