Wasps report £3.8m losses and rising £43m debt

[Tiger93]

Or maybe its worth discussing because if it works and they get away with it we could also get on that ship and improve our squad and club?

[Tiglon]

Get away with what?

[Tiger93]

The bond scheme and then breaking the clauses.

[Tiglon]

Ah I see - not sure they did it on purpose. One would think they would have chosen to make more EBITDA if they could, but who knows what goes on in that world.

[Tiger93]

That's why ive posted it. Im hoping someone with better knowledge can dissect it.

[jgriffin]

Ripe for sale.

[Hot_Charlie]

It's early days.

Speculate to accumulate.

A lot of accumulating required!

[Grimlish]

The scale of the borrowing may be new but is the principle new? In large part it’s Bonds owned predominantly by the club’s fans, no?There must be many sports clubs that have done something similar. Indeed I know some here have ‘shares’ (non-voting?) issued some time ago at Tigers on what might be a similar basis even if the money involved is smaller - perhaps one of those could clarify? It’s surely only the question of whether this is an investment that pays off or a gamble that lumbers the club with an impossible debt causing its demise. They are some way off filling their stadium with fans on a sustainable basis so we can expect more slightly aggressive marketing and breaking of old assumptions about what works. And the use of other enterprises to cross subsidise the rugby - that’s also not an unusual model in sport - take a look at Barca.

I’d prefer they weren’t the new noisy neighbours and I don’t want them beating us on the field at any time - but IF they stick to the salary cap and associates rules, what’s the problem?

[doublecarpet]

We didn't spend the injury dispensation available to us this season, so if we aren't going over the cap by the legal means available, we certainly aren't going to Bath it are we...?!

[voice of the crumbie]

The scale of the borrowing may be new but is the principle new? In large part it’s Bonds owned predominantly by the club’s fans, no?There must be many sports clubs that have done something similar. Indeed I know some here have ‘shares’ (non-voting?) issued some time ago at Tigers on what might be a similar basis even if the money involved is smaller - perhaps one of those could clarify? It’s surely only the question of whether this is an investment that pays off or a gamble that lumbers the club with an impossible debt causing its demise. They are some way off filling their stadium with fans on a sustainable basis so we can expect more slightly aggressive marketing and breaking of old assumptions about what works. And the use of other enterprises to cross subsidise the rugby - that’s also not an unusual model in sport - take a look at Barca.

I’d prefer they weren’t the new noisy neighbours and I don’t want them beating us on the field at any time - but IF they stick to the salary cap and associates rules, what’s the problem?

Not only Barca. Tigers are doing the same with the new hotel they are building.

[johnthegriff]

The Tiger's share issue at the time of becoming a PLC was gifts to existing members and purchase by members and do give us a vote on major issues raised at the AGM. It is right that non rugby activities subsidise players wages etc as quite simply revenue raised by rugby alone is not sufficient to meet the salary cap figure. The Wasp model is not simple and only time will tell if it works, there will come a time when in some manner they have to pay back the capital raised by the bonds. It will be interesting to see how they do it.

[voice of the crumbie]

The Tiger's share issue at the time of becoming a PLC was gifts to existing members and purchase by members and do give us a vote on major issues raised at the AGM. It is right that non rugby activities subsidise players wages etc as quite simply revenue raised by rugby alone is not sufficient to meet the salary cap figure. The Wasp model is not simple and only time will tell if it works, there will come a time when in some manner they have to pay back the capital raised by the bonds. It will be interesting to see how they do it.

I'm all for drawing in extra revenue from non-rugby activity to support the core rugby activity. Maybe if they ever get round to building a multi-storey car park behind the Crumbie that will be another additional income source on non-match days.

I have a vague recollection of reading some time ago a suggestion that Wasps had raised some of the borrowing by over-valuing the Ricoh stadium. If so this seems a bit of a dangerous thing to do. As you say John time will tell whether they are successful.

[johnthegriff]

I don't think you will have long to wait for the multi storey car park, I am hoping there will be room for coaches to depart to away fixtures next season!

[jgriffin]

The Tiger's share issue at the time of becoming a PLC was gifts to existing members and purchase by members and do give us a vote on major issues raised at the AGM. It is right that non rugby activities subsidise players wages etc as quite simply revenue raised by rugby alone is not sufficient to meet the salary cap figure. The Wasp model is not simple and only time will tell if it works, there will come a time when in some manner they have to pay back the capital raised by the bonds. It will be interesting to see how they do it.

I'm all for drawing in extra revenue from non-rugby activity to support the core rugby activity. Maybe if they ever get round to building a multi-storey car park behind the Crumbie that will be another additional income source on non-match days.

I have a vague recollection of reading some time ago a suggestion that Wasps had raised some of the borrowing by over-valuing the Ricoh stadium. If so this seems a bit of a dangerous thing to do. As you say John time will tell whether they are successful.

AFAIK the stadium is collateral, but not wholly owned, and there is surrounding real estate. I hope that the club does not collapse, but have this 'orrible feeling that a quiet sale to a hedge fund will occur sometime. Mind you, the ownership of Quins is a bit odd, the ultimate owner being a group in Singapore or HK?

[Tiger93]

Their accounts are late again. Not exactly good publicity is it.