torchomatic
Well-Known Member
It's capitalise. You've used the Americanisation.
Appeal granted (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter CJ_covblaze
- Start date
It's capitalise. You've used the Americanisation.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Of course damages would be seeked if anyone was found to be guilty of anything.
So what is in this communication that you say about? Where did it come from? Was it before Wasps took over and paid off the loan?
Like I said earlier we are unsure what would happen. I prefer to deal with facts and not hearsay. And we don't know the facts.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
what happens to the lease if group insolvent (from details in bond prospectus)
"Under the terms of the head lease granted by Coventry City Council ("CCC") to Arena Coventry (2006) Limited ("ACL2006") in respect of the Arena (the "Head Lease"), CCC have reserved the right to forfeit the Head Lease if ACL2006 becomes insolvent. Insolvency in this scenario means a situation where ACL2006 becomes unable to pay its debts, has a receiver/administrator/provisional liquidator appointed over its assets, has assets seized in order to pay debts of ACL2006 or has a winding-up order made against it. The effect of forfeiture would be that the 250 year Head Lease would fall away and that ACL would then become the tenant of CCC at the Arena for the remaining 38 years of its existing lease. However, the right of CCC to claim forfeiture of the Head Lease is not an automatic right. If CCC made a claim for such forfeiture, this could be contested by ACL2006, any third party that held security over ACL2006 and any subtenants of ACL2006 by making application to a court in England. Further, if an administrator was to be appointed over the assets of ACL2006, then CCC would not be able to forfeit the Head Lease without the consent of the appointed administrator or with the leave of the courts.
If forfeiture was to take place prior to maturity of the Bonds, then U.S. Bank Trustees Limited, the entity that will hold the security on behalf of Bondholders, may not be in a position to assign the Head Lease for value in the event CCC forfeited the lease as described in the preceding paragraph. This may have an impact on the Bondholders’ ability to receive full repayment of their investment in the Bonds on the occurrence of such an insolvency event."
"Under the terms of the head lease granted by Coventry City Council ("CCC") to Arena Coventry (2006) Limited ("ACL2006") in respect of the Arena (the "Head Lease"), CCC have reserved the right to forfeit the Head Lease if ACL2006 becomes insolvent. Insolvency in this scenario means a situation where ACL2006 becomes unable to pay its debts, has a receiver/administrator/provisional liquidator appointed over its assets, has assets seized in order to pay debts of ACL2006 or has a winding-up order made against it. The effect of forfeiture would be that the 250 year Head Lease would fall away and that ACL would then become the tenant of CCC at the Arena for the remaining 38 years of its existing lease. However, the right of CCC to claim forfeiture of the Head Lease is not an automatic right. If CCC made a claim for such forfeiture, this could be contested by ACL2006, any third party that held security over ACL2006 and any subtenants of ACL2006 by making application to a court in England. Further, if an administrator was to be appointed over the assets of ACL2006, then CCC would not be able to forfeit the Head Lease without the consent of the appointed administrator or with the leave of the courts.
If forfeiture was to take place prior to maturity of the Bonds, then U.S. Bank Trustees Limited, the entity that will hold the security on behalf of Bondholders, may not be in a position to assign the Head Lease for value in the event CCC forfeited the lease as described in the preceding paragraph. This may have an impact on the Bondholders’ ability to receive full repayment of their investment in the Bonds on the occurrence of such an insolvency event."
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
If SISU are planning on keeping up this crap waiting for Wasps to fail then I make it around another 5 years to go .................. bond repayable 2022
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
details of the charge to guarantee the bonds are in this Registration of charge 041872890008, created on 13 May 2015
and can be found here WASPS HOLDINGS LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House)
It looks like the ACL & ACL 2006 assets and shares are charged together with the proceeds of the sale of Premiership shares but not the P shares themselves
brings the question of entities up again, ACL & ACL 2006 (and IEC) could be separated off from the group. ACL & ACL 2006 would retain the balance left of the original lease which because of all the other activity at the site would have some worth,(it always has done in previous accounts of the ACL group)
and can be found here WASPS HOLDINGS LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House)
It looks like the ACL & ACL 2006 assets and shares are charged together with the proceeds of the sale of Premiership shares but not the P shares themselves
brings the question of entities up again, ACL & ACL 2006 (and IEC) could be separated off from the group. ACL & ACL 2006 would retain the balance left of the original lease which because of all the other activity at the site would have some worth,(it always has done in previous accounts of the ACL group)
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Looks that way. CCC do not have an automatic right to claim the lease is forfeit. So the 250 year lease reverts to the years left on the original head lease held by ACL it doesn't necessarily revert to CCC. The assets and shares of ACL & ACL 2006 would still be charged to secure the bond debt
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Astute
Well-Known Member
Was it? I said if they couldn't repay the bonds.
You said that we knew for sure that it would revert to CCC. I said we couldn't be sure.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well it does as the only way they couldn't is if they folded
Not that they will. They will just redo the bond and Richardson will fund any shortfalls.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Still amazes me that the council have allowed the lease to be used as security and don't have the lease reverting to their ownership if Wasps default.
There is, or at least was the last time I looked, documents on the CCC website concerning the possibility of CCFC taking ACL ownership that state exactly that sort of agreement should never be allowed.
There is, or at least was the last time I looked, documents on the CCC website concerning the possibility of CCFC taking ACL ownership that state exactly that sort of agreement should never be allowed.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So what you're saying is is that JR2 is even more pointless than I and most others believe it to be and even your own theory of what it's setting out to achieve is redundant by what you just posted.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
We should get a better idea how Wasps are doing by the end of next month when they have to publish the June 2017 figures
SISU are certainly dragging everything out, it is in their interest to I suppose. There is a possibility of a return from the court cases (not a very big one imo) they could be sitting waiting for Wasps to falter, (So far from 2014 the overall picture of the Wasps group has been improving year on year so that's a longish term risk action for sisu), they could be just keeping things going to avoid crystalising the loss, they could be keeping things going in the hope of a settlement or simply buying time to reorganise/restructure the funds and soften the blows. Who knows certainly none of us. So long as the course of action balances the potential perceived advantages they will keep going, especially if the CCFC investment is not costing them any more. It is all about the investors/investment nothing to do with CCFC on the pitch as such.
SISU are certainly dragging everything out, it is in their interest to I suppose. There is a possibility of a return from the court cases (not a very big one imo) they could be sitting waiting for Wasps to falter, (So far from 2014 the overall picture of the Wasps group has been improving year on year so that's a longish term risk action for sisu), they could be just keeping things going to avoid crystalising the loss, they could be keeping things going in the hope of a settlement or simply buying time to reorganise/restructure the funds and soften the blows. Who knows certainly none of us. So long as the course of action balances the potential perceived advantages they will keep going, especially if the CCFC investment is not costing them any more. It is all about the investors/investment nothing to do with CCFC on the pitch as such.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I really think this is a red herring from our esteemed chairman. I'd be pretty confident the original investment has been written off.
Doesn't mean they don't want to make some cash of course, but I'd be pretty sure any cash they did make wouldn't be off to the original investment fund...
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I'm 99% certain they did not expect to be given the right to appeal.
I think this is a real curve ball in the whole saga.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I dunno.
I stand by the fact if a judge feels it's worth hearing then, well... it's worth hearing.
The main concern is, however, that they don't play all their cards in the first hearing to draw it out. You know how it was over so quickly, and they seemed so ludicrously underprepared? That doesn't sit right, really... as whatever else they may be, stupid isn't one of them.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The barristers pick out the bits of the facts that best suit their case and put that forward. That's all perfectly above board and normal. To get an appeal they must raise points of law that put doubt as to the judges understanding/judgement. They only have to raise one significant doubt and that will probably be enough to get an appeal. It doesn't mean that SISU have anything new to offer or indeed that their case is any stronger than the one they put forward originally. From what I understand then I do not see how an appeal can be successful or if it is and goes to JR2 how that could be.
What seemed to be put forward by SISU was evidence that did not exist at the time, and didn't really address whether proper procedure had taken place. A JR in this instance is a test of procedure not evidence. In any case if you were to look at the evidence established SISU's JR2 case contradicts previous court cases or simply ignores them.
As has been said SISU bid £2.8m for the Charity shares which was actually in total less than Wasps, and yet now are saying that ACL as a whole was substantially worth more - clearly they didn't think so at the time. They would have been privy to a lot of historic info to base their assessment on because of the years of negotiation preceding it. They also publically declared they would not interfere with the sale of the CCC shares but now claim loss because they were denied the opportunity to bid. So many contradictions lost in the volume of information put forward by them
What seemed to be put forward by SISU was evidence that did not exist at the time, and didn't really address whether proper procedure had taken place. A JR in this instance is a test of procedure not evidence. In any case if you were to look at the evidence established SISU's JR2 case contradicts previous court cases or simply ignores them.
As has been said SISU bid £2.8m for the Charity shares which was actually in total less than Wasps, and yet now are saying that ACL as a whole was substantially worth more - clearly they didn't think so at the time. They would have been privy to a lot of historic info to base their assessment on because of the years of negotiation preceding it. They also publically declared they would not interfere with the sale of the CCC shares but now claim loss because they were denied the opportunity to bid. So many contradictions lost in the volume of information put forward by them
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just covering all the perceived bases NW .............. The original investment has most probably been written down in value doesn't mean it has been written off though
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
So your buddies Grendel, and Fernadopartridge don't come in for criticism from you then?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
my understanding is that the appeal is to challenge the judgement of Justice Rupinder Singh not the actions of CCC which will be challenged should the JR2 go ahead.
Even then the CCC actions have to be challenged on what was known or should have been known at the time. Actions that happened after the decision are not relevant if not part of the decision
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
And another one joins.
Astute
Well-Known Member
They haven't made a loss yet. They have made an investment. OK not a very good investment. But it is all about numbers. And done in a complicated way. What they have invested can be put against items of value. Ryton, player values and so on. As everything belongs to them they can put any sort of value on everything.
We don't know who owns what or if anyone was a shareholder previously. Could still be the same investors with others added. We might never know.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'd be genuinely amazed if it's still valid.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Well... he's used the Oxford spelling as opposed to Chambers, if you want to be pedantic
SkyblueBri
Well-Known Member
Does anyone know the time scale to hear this appeal?
Nick
Administrator
Wouldn't they need to present evidence to show why he was wrong though? Then we get to the appeal and it gets kicked straight out it just makes allowing the appeal pointless.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
As already been explained Oxford English Dictionary spelling....... You were saying???
The club? If they can wave the 30 mill compo at people, they will only listen to bids that would take that into account. Even though it appears a lost cause, while they can wave it they will.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
and that is, apparently, highly unusual given he has just been appointed to the Appeal court.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Well... he's used the Oxford spelling as opposed to Chambers, if you want to be pedantic
When it comes to him then yes I want to be pedantic.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
sought (couldn't resist the urge to be pedantic :sorry
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I don't think the ARVO money has been written off, which is in the region of £10M isn't it? I can't see Joy going unless she gets all of that back.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
ARVO's different to the rest though.
ARVO plus 10% would be a massive result for Seppala I'd say... but that's rather different to the other investment.