Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (30 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
We knew that NEC and Mike Ashley were interested, that should set alarm bells ringing. Didn’t NEC originally make a bid?

CCC May have been getting Ashley in, but ultimately it’s about getting the best deal for the creditors - SISU have played on the only show in town again and lost… again

I’m pissed at the council for 2014 still. But this one’s on SISU
Click to expand...

I don't think it's even a play as much as it is they just can't raise that much capital
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
I don't think it's even a play as much as it is they just can't raise that much capital
Click to expand...
Everyone here is too focussed on the council this time, I’m with them for 2014 - but their influence isn’t as much as it was in 2014.

a deal was accepted by the administrator as a pre-pack whilst SISU twiddled their fingers. They’ve now tried to act knowing full well it’s an exclusivity period

I’d go with SISU if they’d made a bid at the time Ashley did but they didn’t
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Everyone here is too focussed on the council this time, I’m with them for 2014 - but their influence isn’t as much as it was in 2014.

a deal was accepted by the administrator as a pre-pack whilst SISU twiddled their fingers. They’ve now tried to act knowing full well it’s an exclusivity period

I’d go with SISU if they’d made a bid at the time Ashley did but they didn’t
Click to expand...

SISU only ever wanted to make a move if the debt was going to be gone or all but gone. A bit like an ordinary schmuck wanting to bid for it really
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
CCFCSteve said:
That’s my view. The administrators main obligation is to the company’s creditors. Don’t get me wrong if there were two offers exactly the same and Council said as freeholder ‘go for that one’ fair enough but I can’t see the Council overriding the administrators main duty which in this case is to achieve the best return to creditors

That’s not to say they aren’t fully in the loop as I mentioned, but unless they have additional powers in the lease and/or threatened to forfeit* I can’t see how they would’ve influenced the bidding process

*they also know how litigious SISU are so this would be crazy
Click to expand...
I'd love to know a very practical way of how CCC can override the main duty of the administrator, in order to shaft SISU.
 
The Philosopher

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
SISU only ever wanted to make a move if the debt was going to be gone or all but gone. A bit like an ordinary schmuck wanting to bid for it really
Click to expand...
I’m not sure anyone really wanted to take on the unsecured debts of ACL.

The value is in the lease (in this case because 250 years it’s almost like a freehold)

The Bondholders have first charge so the trustee can act like a bank in a mortgage situation: satisfy them with a figure and the lease can be reassigned (with CCC agreeing)

It may well be that MA has bid the £35m for the lease for the stadium. This means the Trustees cannot really object. There may be some jiggery pokery where the P Share goes to MA rather than the Trustees (I’m sure they could find a way to do this) if that ever came to fruition but that’s a different thing altogether. The P share looks like the only other potential realisable asset in the whole jumble sale and it looks like the Bondholders have a say I’m what happens to that. I may be wrong but that’s the impression.

Once those two assets have been spirited away then the remaining cash in the pot will be shared. This will most likely be zero after the administrator has been paid. Usually there is a deal for some bread to be left on the table for the administrator when assets are transferred in this way. It’ll be trading name or licenses maybe.

I’m guessing that MA has an exclusive completion window where if he doesn’t move forward then other parties can try to negotiate with the BH.

It does appear that SISU wanted to agree a less than £35m figure which would have meant waiting for admin.

This is how all this looks me.

SISU have been quiet because they are waiting to see. No point doing anything until the MA situation become clear.

Any IP on here or corporate lawyers tell me I’ve got this wrong?
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
The Philosopher said:
I’m not sure anyone really wanted to take on the unsecured debts of ACL.

The value is in the lease (in this case because 250 years it’s almost like a freehold)

The Bondholders have first charge so the trustee can act like a bank in a mortgage situation: satisfy them with a figure and the lease can be reassigned (with CCC agreeing)

It may well be that MA has bid the £35m for the lease for the stadium. This means the Trustees cannot really object. There may be some jiggery pokery where the P Share goes to MA rather than the Trustees (I’m sure they could find a way to do this) if that ever came to fruition but that’s a different thing altogether. The P share looks like the only other potential realisable asset in the whole jumble sale and it looks like the Bondholders have a say I’m what happens to that. I may be wrong but that’s the impression.

Once those two assets have been spirited away then the remaining cash in the pot will be shared. This will most likely be zero after the administrator has been paid. Usually there is a deal for some bread to be left on the table for the administrator when assets are transferred in this way. It’ll be trading name or licenses maybe.

I’m guessing that MA has an exclusive completion window where if he doesn’t move forward then other parties can try to negotiate with the BH.

It does appear that SISU wanted to agree a less than £35m figure which would have meant waiting for admin.

This is how all this looks me.

SISU have been quiet because they are waiting to see. No point doing anything until the MA situation become clear.

Any IP on here or corporate lawyers tell me I’ve got this wrong?
Click to expand...

Well the long and short of it is they wanted it for as little as possible, either because they can't raise more or they're not that bothered. To Ashley what is 'cheap' is obviously a lot higher so for him it guarantees him an in for an acceptable amount.
 
Terry Gibson's perm

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
Either sisu owning the ground or Ashley the club don’t benefit either way.

Sisu we are tied in at what rent they want to take, get to the prem the rent is now £30 million a year and happy investors.

Ashley unless he buys the club now, in about seven years he holds all the aces as sisu aren’t building any new ground and moving away again will be the end for most fans I guess.

The club as usual are the ones to suffer.


He would take Ashley over Joy any day but that probably shows how bad the current lot are.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
clint van damme said:
I'm always more than happy to indulge in a bit of council bashing. Football or non football related.
But I just can't see how the finger can be pointed at them in this instance.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the most prosaic answer is just that SISU are either unwilling, or unable, to pay as much as one of the other bidders.

Although as an aside, no deal has been completed yet, so their time may yet come...(!)
 
The Philosopher

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
Terry Gibson's perm said:
Either sisu owning the ground or Ashley the club don’t benefit either way.

Sisu we are tied in at what rent they want to take, get to the prem the rent is now £30 million a year and happy investors.

Ashley unless he buys the club now, in about seven years he holds all the aces as sisu aren’t building any new ground and moving away again will be the end for most fans I guess.

The club as usual are the ones to suffer.


He would take Ashley over Joy any day but that probably shows how bad the current lot are.
Click to expand...
Rents cannot just be raised without adhering to strict criteria. MA cannot charge CCFC more than now save for inflation or something else that would have to go to arbitration. The £13m in repairs could be something but it’s a tricky one.

It’s the 1954 Act that protects tenants.

Having done a little bit of digging it’s the 10 year bit I’m unsure of, whether this was an absolute cut off because of Uni deal or not.

ITKs on here know anything?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The Philosopher said:
Rents cannot just be raised without adhering to strict criteria. MA cannot charge CCFC more than now save for inflation or something else that would have to go to arbitration. The £13m in repairs could be something but it’s a tricky one.

It’s the 1954 Act that protects tenants.

Having done a little bit of digging it’s the 10 year bit I’m unsure of, whether this was an absolute cut off because of Uni deal or not.

ITKs on here know anything?
Click to expand...

Wasnt it a minimum tenure thing with the EFL?
 
olderskyblue

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Wasnt it a minimum tenure thing with the EFL?
Click to expand...
Be funny if MA gets all he wants from the council, then sells the Arena to SISU…
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
SISU only ever wanted to make a move if the debt was going to be gone or all but gone. A bit like an ordinary schmuck wanting to bid for it really
Click to expand...
Dependent on what the bid ultimately is anywhere around £20M -£25M or even more just wouldn't leave enough to have a chance of recouping what they need to get out.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
The Philosopher said:
Rents cannot just be raised without adhering to strict criteria. MA cannot charge CCFC more than now save for inflation or something else that would have to go to arbitration. The £13m in repairs could be something but it’s a tricky one.

It’s the 1954 Act that protects tenants.

Having done a little bit of digging it’s the 10 year bit I’m unsure of, whether this was an absolute cut off because of Uni deal or not.

ITKs on here know anything?
Click to expand...
Break clause in the 7th year.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Colin Steins Smile said:
I agree that SISU will be very awkward to do any deal with. However, I think the EFL will not allow the club to be moved again, which eliminates that tactic for SISU.
The only options then left for SISU is to sell any player they can to recoup money, then liquidate or sell what's left of the club.
Click to expand...
Awkward? CCFC are for sale for the right price. Having a difference on valuation isn't being awkward. There should be a middle ground. If not SISU will have to keep us going. And Ashley will have to wait for his big outlay to have a chance to make serious money via promotion.
 
Terry Gibson's perm

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
The Philosopher said:
Rents cannot just be raised without adhering to strict criteria. MA cannot charge CCFC more than now save for inflation or something else that would have to go to arbitration. The £13m in repairs could be something but it’s a tricky one.

It’s the 1954 Act that protects tenants.

Having done a little bit of digging it’s the 10 year bit I’m unsure of, whether this was an absolute cut off because of Uni deal or not.

ITKs on here know anything?
Click to expand...


I am more worried what sisu would do.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
F*"king Byng.
Guess he's piping up with Sisu's likely plan or expectations .
Has absolutely nothing to do with admin and everything that goes with liquidation.
Nothing for creditor's .
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
wingy said:
F*"king Byng.
Guess he's piping up with Sisu's likely plan or expectations .
Has absolutely nothing to do with admin and everything that goes with liquidation.
Nothing for creditor's .
Click to expand...
Yeah. If he is reflecting the SISU plan, we can see why it wouldn't happen!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 28 (members: 0, guests: 28)
Top