Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (11 Viewers)

[Nick]

Listen to the interview. 2:10 “the political administration of the council were very very clear there was to be no bailout, no funding directly into Wasps”

Yeah, he said Reeves wanted to do it.

 

---

[Nick]

It appears that the £1m paid for exclusivity is the key.

No firm legally binding bid was clearly made, an indicative offer and the ability to fund “£X million” MA could clearly show, perhaps why he got PB status.

So who is getting the £1m?

His bid is also on the basis that security / charges can be wiped off.

 

[Nick]

According to the press release from ACL yes:

“The Companies and the proposed administrators from FRP Advisory have run an accelerated sales process to sell the business and assets of the Companies and have identified a preferred bidder.”

Yeah, the companies

Relax, stop trying to rewrite things we know to have happened while claiming anything about the council is a conspiracy.

 

[chiefdave]

Its really not. Come on. Wasps promised to redevelop the land around the arena, a key council priority they keep mentioning. More importantly they promised a use for the bowl and outreach work. All that was new investment into the city. We know it didn’t happen, but that’s not the point.

And yes the bloke who wants to, wait for it, develop the land around the arena, is the preferred bidder. But crucially, he’s also the bloke that actually put a fucking bid in.

If regeneration of the area is a key council priority what have they actually done to achieve that. After all they are the freeholder and were part owners of ACL for many years. Presumably if it's such a priority there will be evidence of numerous regeneration projects undertaken around the stadium on the councils watch.

I must have missed them because after the initial build project it seems to me fuck all has happened apart from the council refusing permission for projects not involving Wasps.

If regeneration is key what safeguards did the council put in place to ensure Wasps weren't just making empty promises?

Also must have missed details being published of Ashley's proposed regeneration of the area. What exciting projects do we have to look forward to?

 

[The Philosopher]

Can anyone explain why £35m for a stadium and the associated other income streams that cost £113m (2005 money - £175m now?(Wiki)) to build is “too much”, “out of SISU’s and their backer’s reach?”

Is it not more likely that MA and his team have been a bit sharper in manoeuvring to exclusivity things until Thursday whereby on the courtroom steps (it’s figurative) this alleged 45% offer gets lifted to say 75%?

 

[Nick]

If regeneration of the area is a key council priority what have they actually done to achieve that. After all they are the freeholder and were part owners of ACL for many years. Presumably if it's such a priority there will be evidence of numerous regeneration projects undertaken around the stadium on the councils watch.

I must have missed them because after the initial build project it seems to me fuck all has happened apart from the council refusing permission for projects not involving Wasps.

If regeneration is key what safeguards did the council put in place to ensure Wasps weren't just making empty promises?

Also must have missed details being published of Ashley's proposed regeneration of the area. What exciting projects do we have to look forward to?

There's nothing at the moment to say they still don't want Richardson to be involved with it.

After all like you said, they didn't seem too keen on other people wanting to redevelop the area. Hence when somebody did want to build a hotel or sort out Rowleys Green Social Club it was turned down.

 

[The Philosopher]

So who is getting the £1m?

His bid is also on the basis that security / charges can be wiped off.

The administrator won’t be working for nothing.

The £1m plus vat (1.2m) “exclusivity” fee sounds like an administrator’s bill to me.

Why do you think it’s put forward separately?

What are your thoughts on why?

 

[The Philosopher]

And fair play to Shmmeee for sticking to his guns.

He makes some valid points, not ones necessarily that many agree with, but it’s been a massive pile-on on here.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Costs will increase exponentially if this drags on, won't they. So, to simplify for the purposes of my fat fingers, the £15mil bid might need to be £20mil just to match the current return offered for bondholders if this carries on.

Agreed. There are trading costs*, wages, professional fees (as trading would have to be overseen by administrators), probably repayment of non refundable deposit as mention earlier, additional legal costs for new sale, potential new/amended lease etc etc. also potential legal actions by CCFC if we can’t play games at stadium

I appreciate some of the bondholders aren’t happy but what happens in a lot of insolvencies is creditors annoyance is being misdirected at the wrong person. This isn’t the preferred bidders/administrators/CCC fault…this is Richardsons/Wasps ! If they feel they were misled at the time of their investment they should be focussing actions on any misrepresentations by third parties, not on what is a potential (partial) solution

Again, I’m saying this without knowing if they know something we don’t ie some white knight willing to pay millions more for stadium immediately is waiting in the background

*insurance, utilities etc likely higher of outside of original contracts with ACL

 

[Grendel]

Because that was what was needed to get it built. As NW said the requirement was added by Nellist at the vote stage.

Other projects have a different history and this is ours. Why can’t our owners fund the club like other teams at this level? Because they’re other clubs.

Other council constructed stadiums didn’t to my knowledge have that caveat when the football clubs then bought it

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

What’s your allegation here? That Reeves is lying about the stage the proposal got to? And about being told no bailout by the councillors?

The ‘allegation’ as written is he considered it. Or are you saying he never even considered it and the Wasps board was voting on something else?

 

[Nick]

The ‘allegation’ as written is he considered it. Or are you saying he never even considered it and the Wasps board was voting on something else?

He's directly quoted saying he did.

"Yeah but sisu wouldn't build a hotel for the council"

 

[djr8369]

Listen to the interview. 2:10 “the political administration of the council were very very clear there was to be no bailout, no funding directly into Wasps”

And yet he drew up plans for 30m.

You make some fair points and some people are probably reading too much into certain things but some of your defence is weirdly try hard.

 

[djr8369]

If regeneration of the area is a key council priority what have they actually done to achieve that. After all they are the freeholder and were part owners of ACL for many years. Presumably if it's such a priority there will be evidence of numerous regeneration projects undertaken around the stadium on the councils watch.

I must have missed them because after the initial build project it seems to me fuck all has happened apart from the council refusing permission for projects not involving Wasps.

If regeneration is key what safeguards did the council put in place to ensure Wasps weren't just making empty promises?

Also must have missed details being published of Ashley's proposed regeneration of the area. What exciting projects do we have to look forward to?

If you look back at post 12,409 in reply to me schmeee is now saying he’s not made the regeneration argument!

 

[Grendel]

Can anyone explain why £35m for a stadium and the associated other income streams that cost £113m (2005 money - £175m now?(Wiki)) to build is “too much”, “out of SISU’s and their backer’s reach?”

Is it not more likely that MA and his team have been a bit sharper in manoeuvring to exclusivity things until Thursday whereby on the courtroom steps (it’s figurative) this alleged 45% offer gets lifted to say 75%?

Its market value is not £35 million

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

He's directly quoted saying he did.

"Yeah but sisu wouldn't build a hotel for the council"

It’s defending the indefensible.

 

[duffer]

Agreed. There are trading costs*, wages, professional fees (as trading would have to be overseen by administrators), probably repayment of non refundable deposit as mention earlier, additional legal costs for new sale, potential new/amended lease etc etc. also potential legal actions by CCFC if we can’t play games at stadium

I appreciate some of the bondholders aren’t happy but what happens in a lot of insolvencies is creditors annoyance is being misdirected at the wrong person. This isn’t the preferred bidders/administrators/CCC fault…this is Richardsons/Wasps ! If they feel they were misled at the time of their investment they should be focussing actions on any misrepresentations by third parties, not on what is a potential (partial) solution

Again, I’m saying this without knowing if they know something we don’t ie some white knight willing to pay millions more for stadium immediately is waiting in the background

*insurance, utilities etc likely higher of outside of original contracts with ACL

And sometimes the creditors are upset because the people acting in their interests, in this case the Trustee and the Administrator, do not appear to be acting in their best interests. You don't generally get 100 people crowdfunding legal action unless they feel as though there's been some serious failure in the process which needs to be tested in court.

Clearly they think the pre-pack where they blindly surrender all of their security in the interests of other creditors isn't necessarily the best option for them. I'd tend to agree.

Again, I seriously doubt that anyone here would be quite as sanguine about the process if the impact was on their money.

 

[Grendel]

If you look back at post 12,409 in reply to me schmeee is now saying he’s not made the regeneration argument!

To be fair tbe council Aren’t to keen either

UPDATED: Separate hotel bid next to Ricoh Arena refused by Coventry council – despite support for Wasps’ hotel plan

A BID to turn a scrapyard into a boutique hotel next to the Ricoh Arena has been rejected by Coventry City Council planning officers.

coventryobserver.co.uk

 

[Nick]

To be fair tbe council Aren’t to keen either

UPDATED: Separate hotel bid next to Ricoh Arena refused by Coventry council – despite support for Wasps’ hotel plan

A BID to turn a scrapyard into a boutique hotel next to the Ricoh Arena has been rejected by Coventry City Council planning officers.

coventryobserver.co.uk

Yeah but that wasn't their mate.

 

[hutch1972]

I think the issue is, the Council (Reeves) entertained the idea of a bail out of Wasps, no matter how it’s worded, and got found out. They have then lied through their back teeth about it ever being an idea and that’s what’s really fugging people off. The lies keep coming.

Reminds me somewhat of the serious consideration to buy Wasps in 2012, 2 years before they actually acquired ACL.
My lack of trust in those involved is off the scale. It never happened,but still leaves many questions.

 

[djr8369]

To be fair tbe council Aren’t to keen either

UPDATED: Separate hotel bid next to Ricoh Arena refused by Coventry council – despite support for Wasps’ hotel plan

A BID to turn a scrapyard into a boutique hotel next to the Ricoh Arena has been rejected by Coventry City Council planning officers.

coventryobserver.co.uk

Would it have interfered with the flying taxi port?

 

[Nick]

Reminds me somewhat of the serious consideration to buy Wasps in 2012, 2 years before they actually acquired ACL.
My lack of trust in those involved is off the scale. It never happened,but still leaves many questions.

The same as Richardson being interested in the Stadium before he also owned Wasps too?

 

[The Philosopher]

Did OSB or his clients invest any money? There’s a poster “PUSB” (I mean…) that’s on the Wasp Bond forum with a similar style and syntax.

If so, be interesting to hear the thoughts of someone with skin in the game.

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

Yeah but that wasn't their mate.

Nothing in it for the council was there

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Did OSB or his clients invest any money? There’s a poster “PUSB” (I mean…) that’s on the Wasp Bond forum with a similar style and syntax.

If so, be interesting to hear the thoughts of someone with skin in the game.

This idea of connecting OSB to Wasps has never made much sense to be honest. Nearly as bad a theory as thinking we had Hyam posting on here for 2 years

 

[The Philosopher]

This idea of connecting OSB to Wasps has never made much sense to be honest. Nearly as bad a theory as thinking we had Hyam posting on here for 2 years

Did he not originally praise the Wasp finance model?

Impossible to assume noclients invested and he’s acting on a professional capacity?

Are you him? If not why answer?

 

[shmmeee]

And yet he drew up plans for 30m.

You make some fair points and some people are probably reading too much into certain things but some of your defence is weirdly try hard.

Until there’s evidence to the contrary I’m just going off what’s been said. It was an outline proposal that didn’t go anywhere. As I’ve said before if Reeves thought it would go anywhere then he’s a fucking idiot because he’s been told by the people who have to sign off on the decision it wouldn’t go anywhere.

There’s a long road between a three sheet proposal and anything the council could vote on. Gilbert is trying very hard to be Jeremy Paxman on this and the LOTO is banging the drum hard, but in reality nothing happened. Shit ideas come up, the issues start when they’re followed through.

I think there’s some justification in calling for Reeves’ head because he’s caused a political shit storm and made the councillors look bad. But I can also see the argument that he’s supposed to generate as many possibilities as he can for others to decide on their viability so I can’t see it going anywhere.

 

[Nick]

Until there’s evidence to the contrary I’m just going off what’s been said. It was an outline proposal that didn’t go anywhere. As I’ve said before if Reeves thought it would go anywhere then he’s a fucking idiot because he’s been told by the people who have to sign off on the decision it wouldn’t go anywhere.

There’s a long road between a three sheet proposal and anything the council could vote on. Gilbert is trying very hard to be Jeremy Paxman on this and the LOTO is banging the drum hard, but in reality nothing happened. Shit ideas come up, the issues start when they’re followed through.

I think there’s some justification in calling for Reeves’ head because he’s caused a political shit storm and made the councillors look bad. But I can also see the argument that he’s supposed to generate as many possibilities as he can for others to decide on their viability so I can’t see it going anywhere.

It did happen though? Wasps board voted on it

It's not made up what he was trying to push to wasps.

The evidence is his own quotes

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Did he not originally praise the Wasp finance model?

Impossible to assume noclients invested and he’s acting on a professional capacity?

Are you him? If not why answer?

Are we involved in the bidding for ACL? If not why post anything?

 

[duffer]

The bondholders challenge has a number of problems when it goes to court Thursday

The bondholders are not acting as one body though which is a problem. It doesn't even look like it is the majority of bondholders at the moment opposing.

They do not have a lot of funding to challenge the administration. 15k is not going to buy much legal time i was once told that sort of sum gets you to the court steps. Could they pay upfront for an alternative administration?

The trustee has already said they will not challenge the proposal, there must an informed reason for making that decision. A judge will weigh that against bondholders who are upset because they won't get all of their money back. Of course the administrators have to comply with the law as do the trustees

Say the decision goes against MA, or actually the administrators would be more accurate, then everything fails and the bondholders could end up with even less or even nothing.

A judge will need to be persuaded that other options are better than what is presented to him. The administrators who are agents of the court must show that this is the best deal available while the bondholders without the benefit of the data have to show it is not. So long as the administrators have acted legally I am not sure how they could be found to be at fault

Clearly the preferred bidder is funding the administration from the information released. The bondholders will need to show they can fund an alternative.

Other potential buyers including sisu have indicated they want a more aggressive administration with a new lease. Bondholders would have no security on any new lease. A more aggressive administration would almost certainly provide bondholders less of a return.

If the application fails then it will be liquidation and that will bring all sorts of time issues together with the biggest problem..... keeping the stadium open. No value as not a going concern

From the rumours going round, which no doubt some bondholders are aware of, other potential buyers are waiting in the wings to pay less or even do way with the asset secured.

Other than a seat it court and perhaps a chance to speak I am not sure the bondholders complaining will get much more.

That's my take on it from what I know. Not an insolvency practitioner so there may well be other considerations that changes things. The administrators have worked on this for 2 or 3 months at least surely they will have considered the possibility of objections?

The other thing to bear in mind is this is about ACLs liabilities not the wasps group ones. what other liabilities does ACL have ? Certainly compass and Delaware.

One final thought could there be a cap on the ACL guarantee limited to the amount actually borrowed from wasps finance, not sure if that could be done but that would change things wouldn't it ?

I think the argument I'd make, were I representing the bondholders, is that the Trustee has not attempted to gauge the true opinion of the bondholders and therefore cannot say whether they are content to release their security or not.

His inaction now is in fact a deliberate choice to surrender their security, but it's made without the majority required for such a decision.

I'd simply be asking for a stay on the court's decision until the trustee has obtained (or at least attempted to obtain) the majority opinion which he can then reflect to the court.

Anyway, like I say, no dog in the fight personally, but I can see where they are coming from. Whether the court will agree is a different matter, but I'd contend that unless the Trustee makes an effort, no one will ever know what the majority of the bondholders actually want.

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

No I’ve suggested that Sisu aren’t even at the table by their own choice. There’s no bid to reject. As a side point I’m saying as I’ve said for a decade that Sisu royally fucked up their relationship with a key stakeholder because they were badly advised by a bunch of political loons and have never dealt with a local authority before.

And I’m suggesting that Ashley became preferred bidder after ACL (whoever) heard that SISU actually had funding to bid for the stadium and would bid when the company went into administration.

SISU (and so were the NEC Group) were then royally fucked up before they could even bid.

Point is Shmmee nobody actually really knows what ‘process’ was followed and the real reasons why Ashley became preferred bidder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[CCFCSteve]

And sometimes the creditors are upset because the people acting in their interests, in this case the Trustee and the Administrator, do not appear to be acting in their best interests. You don't generally get 100 people crowdfunding legal action unless they feel as though there's been some serious failure in the process which needs to be tested in court.

Clearly they think the pre-pack where they blindly surrender all of their security in the interests of other creditors isn't necessarily the best option for them. I'd tend to agree.

Again, I seriously doubt that anyone here would be quite as sanguine about the process if the impact was on their money.

The administrators are independent and have an obligation to act in creditors interests. Potentially this is their licences/livelihoods on the line. They would’ve weighed up all the pros and cons of the things raised/mentioned previously and made a call

An administrators duty is not to gamble on a potential better solution in the future especially when there’s no funding available to cover trading. If bondholders aren’t happy they should have to fund trading in the intervening period until another sale is secured

I can’t really comment on the trustees position in this. All I can say is if their communication with bondholders has been poor that certainly wouldn’t have helped and is maybe a big part of the problem here

edit - this isn’t me being heartless, I do sympathise with bondholders, especially in current difficult times for many. It was a risky investment and they believed valuations that appear overstated, many probably only got involved because they supported Wasps

 

[Grendel]

Did he not originally praise the Wasp finance model?

Impossible to assume noclients invested and he’s acting on a professional capacity?

Are you him? If not why answer?

There’s one frequent poster whose always on there and it’s not him you clown

 

[The Philosopher]

I think the argument I'd make, were I representing the bondholders, is that the Trustee has not attempted to gauge the true opinion of the bondholders and therefore cannot say whether they are content to release their security or not.

His inaction now is in fact a deliberate choice to surrender their security, but it's made without the majority required for such a decision.

I'd simply be asking for a stay on the court's decision until the trustee has obtained (or at least attempted to obtain) the majority opinion which he can then reflect to the court.

Anyway, like I say, no dog in the fight personally, but I can see where they are coming from. Whether the court will agree is a different matter, but I'd contend that unless the Trustee makes an effort, no one will ever know what the majority of the bondholders actually want.

There’s all kinds of Twists and Turns that can happen. That SISU is silent is interesting. They only have to throw some kind of legal grenade in on Thursday to put the Trustees and Administrator in a tight spot.

The backfire is that if it fails it creates animosity between SISU & MA. Not good for CCFC.

Queue the “nobody knows anything” and “boring” posts.

Is anyone London based on here going to the hearing?

 

[CCFCSteve]

And I’m suggesting that Ashley became preferred bidder after ACL (whoever) heard that SISU actually had funding to bid for the stadium and would bid when the company went into administration.

SISU (and so were the NEC Group) were then royally fucked up before they could even bid.

Point is Shmmee nobody actually really knows what ‘process’ was followed and the real reasons why Ashley became preferred bidder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Nobody knows for sure but SISU know how the process works, they’ve been through it and will know also plenty of lawyers/advisors to give them a steer. They would’ve been aware of the deadlines involved