Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (181 Viewers)
- Thread starter Alkhen
- Start date
- Status
duffer
Well-Known Member
If MA's got half a brain and wants the Council onside, he'll promise them the moon on a stick if they ask for it. They didn't keep Wasps to a single one of their promises, why would this be any different.
Watch now for the Council hoovering up the glory when the bid goes through, "we got the deal through for the good of the city and the football club!", and then watch them slink back into the shadows if it turns out to be a load of bollocks (cf Wasps).
duffer
Well-Known Member
A freeholder cannot reasonably deny assignment of a lease. That's the law.
And in this case, the lease remains with ACL anyway doesn't it.
Are you sure this 'permission' angle isn't being overplayed?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Perhaps they wanted SISU’s fax number.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
The more I think about it the more MA assuming the position of the Trustee of the Bondholders has possibilities.
Has the legal charge over the lease - can assume and transfer if required.
Has possible security over P Share meaning (possible) playing rights in Prem if allowed (alternative is that the Rugby FA (or whatever they are) might have to give out £9m in cash. They might not want or be able to do this easily. The route of least resistance might be to allow New Wasps back in)
May (and I’m not sure) have a fixed and floating charge over the other assets of the Wasps Group - including trade marks etc.
Any agile minded posters on here have a technical insight why this would not work?
Has the legal charge over the lease - can assume and transfer if required.
Has possible security over P Share meaning (possible) playing rights in Prem if allowed (alternative is that the Rugby FA (or whatever they are) might have to give out £9m in cash. They might not want or be able to do this easily. The route of least resistance might be to allow New Wasps back in)
May (and I’m not sure) have a fixed and floating charge over the other assets of the Wasps Group - including trade marks etc.
Any agile minded posters on here have a technical insight why this would not work?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You can't reasonably agree to assignment of the lease without having a reasonable period to agree to it though?
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
MA won’t assume the position of the Trustees, he will surely buy assets of ACL and novate contracts to a newco, which won’t include the P share. I would imagine the remaining shell of ACL will be liquidated. Proceeds from those assets will be used to pay back as much of the bond value as possible
In terms of P share, and it’s splitting hairs to an extent, no one has an entitlement to the P share which is held by Wasps Holdings - a co-guarantor of the bonds. WH administrator has told the bondholders that he doesn’t have the power to sell them. However, PRL has the right to buy them back and have said that is what they intend to do.
The new owners of WH could challenge that - as a Phoenix entity in the Championship with no players I’m not sure on what basis the challenge would be made.
If/when the PRL buy back the P share, the proceeds are to be placed in a bank account for distribution to the bondholders only. The proceeds of the sale of WH will also go toward bond repayment, as will proceeds of sale of assets in ACL to Ashley.
Thats how I see it anyway, having read the bond’s prospectus.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
The sticking point in all this “CCC have screwed us over” the minuscule detail of when SISUs 10m+ bid went in?
if they didn’t bid then all of this is a moot point. (Which they didn’t)
if they didn’t bid then all of this is a moot point. (Which they didn’t)
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
He definitely won’t have the P share, that’s in Holdings. PRL have indicated they will but back the P share. They seem now to want a 10 club league, the PRL is governed by the remaining clubs, if they P share is bought back the share of central income to those remaining clubs will increase.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Trustees act as custodian or benefit for others not for themselves or own self interest. So being a Trustee for the bondholders would not give MA an "in"
Last edited:
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
I perhaps should have been more clear in my musings.
IF MA refinances the bonds, he could then potentially take over the Charges the Bondholders have in place. He can appoint whichever trustee for himself or just be the trustee.
New trustee accepts a bid from newco - lease moves to newco.
New Trustee claims that the transfer value was less than the charge value and reserves claim over p share.
It’s a bit twisty but not beyond the realms I don’t think.
I’m no longer assuming that a straightforward deal is the route that MA (given his history) would take.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
Paying off the bonds and then them removing their floating charge is one option.
I’m just trying to see how he could satisfy the bond holding investors and then get control of the Charge which seems to have far reaching potential.
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The charge is on the assets of the company in administration, it will disappear with the company. He's the buyer of the company's assets not its liabilities. He doesn't need to satisfy the bond holding investors; they will get what they're given ultimately according to the prospectus.
BackRoomRummermill
Well-Known Member
duffer
Well-Known Member
Not quite seeing your point, FP, and not wishing to pick a row either. Again though, what difference does a "reasonable period" make?
The point I'm trying to make, I suppose, is that if the administrator had chosen a bid from SISU, or indeed anyone else that the Council didn't like, what power would the council actually have to prevent it?
And just to extend it, if the bid was for ACL as a running business, then the lease isn't reassigned at all, is it? So even less input from the council in that case.
Nick
Administrator
Yeah it's awkward for those saying that council have no power of involvement over acl.
Nick
Administrator
Yet they are still pulling stringsACL was bought by Wasps. It is nothing to do with CCC any more.
In fact, the current directors of ACL
ACL ASTUTE 2022 LIMITED people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
ACL ASTUTE 2022 LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activityfind-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
If that's not good enough, how about the announcement of Wasps getting a 100% shareholding?
Wasps Confirm 100% Shareholding In The Ricoh Arena | Ricoh Arena | Wasps
Wasps have today announced that it has completed the acquisition of a 100% shareholding of Arena Coventry Limited.www.coventrybuildingsocietyarena.co.uk
In fact the whole point of Wasps being here was so CCC could divest themselves of a hassle that saw them sued repeatedly by SISU. They didn't want it!
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying the Council have screwed us over. This time.
But at the risk of sounding like a certain other boringly repetitive poster who just can't bring himself to hate Wasps
, I'm just trying to understand their input into a process that from where I sit has nothing directly to do with them.Given the previous history around the arena and their lack of competence/honesty I don't think it hurts to be curious.
Others differ, which is obviously fair enough.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
jordan210
Well-Known Member
program notes if anyone wants it
Good evening and welcome to the Coventry Building Society Arena for tonight’s game against Wigan Athletic in the Sky Bet Championship. I would also like to welcome the players, staff, officials and supporters who join us here for the game tonight.
It is a relief that we are able to welcome people here to the Arena at all, following events outside of our control in recent weeks over the future of Wasps and Arena Coventry Limited (ACL).
There were times during the last few weeks where it appeared likely that ACL could have gone into liquidation instead of administration, and that would have been catastrophic for the company and its employees – and would have resulted in ACL being wound up and the doors being locked at the Arena.
Thankfully that situation was averted but that was a real risk in the build up to recent games, especially the midweek match against Blackburn Rovers which was a day after ACL’s notice of intention to go into administration would end. Ahead of that game, we were required by the EFL to put in place an alternative backup plan to ensure that the fixture would be fulfilled. This was a last resort and would have been very distressing for our supporters and the Club as a whole, but it was important to have this in place to avoid a further postponement and the real risk of a point deduction.
These plans were thankfully not needed in the end, but I would like to thank Walsall FC and their staff for their support in making these plans at short notice for that game.
Through the last few weeks, we have been in constant dialogue with Arena Coventry Limited and Coventry City Council about the situation. The Council have been clear with us about their determination that we continue to be able to play our games at the Arena and their support as much as possible for that to happen. I would like to thank them and their officials for that support, in particular Chief Executive Martin Reeves who has put in much work to achieve that aim.
Even on the day of the Rotherham United match, there were continued doubts about the ability for us to fulfil the game at the Arena due to the ACL situation. It has been widely reported that the Club were required to make additional payments for the game against Blackpool to go ahead, and that was also the case on the day of the Rotherham fixture. Some of these fees related to payments that had not been made to ACL initially, as a result of our damages claim at the start of the season due to the pitch not being safe for us to play, while others did not - but it was made clear that these payments had to be made by us to ACL so we could play at the Arena, and also ensured the Arena as a whole avoided going into liquidation and helped ensure ACL staff got paid.
Much of our time over the last few weeks has been spent speaking to different parties and making various plans for different circumstances here at the Arena and elsewhere – thankfully those plans have remained unused, and we have been able to fulfil fixtures as usual.
The situation has been outside of our control, and the Football Club’s lack of ownership over its stadium goes back nearly two decades since the move from Highfield Road. It remains incredibly frustrating that much of our time has to be spent dealing with issues about stadiums – whether it is the situation in recent weeks, or over the years issues like groundsharing, pitch problems or negotiating short-term fixes to what is a long-term issue – and I share the frustration which I know is most felt by our supporters.
The ownership of the Arena in the future remains, at the time of writing, unclear. What is clear however is that this Arena was built for this Football Club and that the future success and stability of this venue should go hand-in-hand with that of the Sky Blues.
Thanks for your support as always – PUSB.
Good evening and welcome to the Coventry Building Society Arena for tonight’s game against Wigan Athletic in the Sky Bet Championship. I would also like to welcome the players, staff, officials and supporters who join us here for the game tonight.
It is a relief that we are able to welcome people here to the Arena at all, following events outside of our control in recent weeks over the future of Wasps and Arena Coventry Limited (ACL).
There were times during the last few weeks where it appeared likely that ACL could have gone into liquidation instead of administration, and that would have been catastrophic for the company and its employees – and would have resulted in ACL being wound up and the doors being locked at the Arena.
Thankfully that situation was averted but that was a real risk in the build up to recent games, especially the midweek match against Blackburn Rovers which was a day after ACL’s notice of intention to go into administration would end. Ahead of that game, we were required by the EFL to put in place an alternative backup plan to ensure that the fixture would be fulfilled. This was a last resort and would have been very distressing for our supporters and the Club as a whole, but it was important to have this in place to avoid a further postponement and the real risk of a point deduction.
These plans were thankfully not needed in the end, but I would like to thank Walsall FC and their staff for their support in making these plans at short notice for that game.
Through the last few weeks, we have been in constant dialogue with Arena Coventry Limited and Coventry City Council about the situation. The Council have been clear with us about their determination that we continue to be able to play our games at the Arena and their support as much as possible for that to happen. I would like to thank them and their officials for that support, in particular Chief Executive Martin Reeves who has put in much work to achieve that aim.
Even on the day of the Rotherham United match, there were continued doubts about the ability for us to fulfil the game at the Arena due to the ACL situation. It has been widely reported that the Club were required to make additional payments for the game against Blackpool to go ahead, and that was also the case on the day of the Rotherham fixture. Some of these fees related to payments that had not been made to ACL initially, as a result of our damages claim at the start of the season due to the pitch not being safe for us to play, while others did not - but it was made clear that these payments had to be made by us to ACL so we could play at the Arena, and also ensured the Arena as a whole avoided going into liquidation and helped ensure ACL staff got paid.
Much of our time over the last few weeks has been spent speaking to different parties and making various plans for different circumstances here at the Arena and elsewhere – thankfully those plans have remained unused, and we have been able to fulfil fixtures as usual.
The situation has been outside of our control, and the Football Club’s lack of ownership over its stadium goes back nearly two decades since the move from Highfield Road. It remains incredibly frustrating that much of our time has to be spent dealing with issues about stadiums – whether it is the situation in recent weeks, or over the years issues like groundsharing, pitch problems or negotiating short-term fixes to what is a long-term issue – and I share the frustration which I know is most felt by our supporters.
The ownership of the Arena in the future remains, at the time of writing, unclear. What is clear however is that this Arena was built for this Football Club and that the future success and stability of this venue should go hand-in-hand with that of the Sky Blues.
Thanks for your support as always – PUSB.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
As I’ve said before I’m all for a council bashing session, I hate Wasps. But at this point I don’t see what they’ve done.I'm not saying the Council have screwed us over. This time.
But at the risk of sounding like a certain other boringly repetitive poster who just can't bring himself to hate Wasps
Given the previous history around the arena and their lack of competence/honesty I don't think it hurts to be curious.
Others differ, which is obviously fair enough.
they may have been instrumental in bringing Ashley to the table, and someone told me last night that Ashley had an 8 week jump on this.
but when it came to the crunch - on the day before ACL went into admin, SISU hadn’t made a bid. They were waiting for it to go tits up and getting it for pennies.
on that day - we were told of an NEC bid, we were told of Ashley’s bid (8 figures were now told) SISU were silent. I’m more than happy to blame the council if they’ve stopped SISU getting the arena - but SISU didn’t even bid
theyre now acting shocked That they've now tried to bid (in an exclusivity period) and been blocked - the council aren’t blocking that - the admin process has.
the council haven’t screwed SISU here - SISU have screwed SISU, they didn’t even bid
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
One would assume that the lease has various clauses along the lines ofYet they are still pulling strings
-“Insolvency event the Freeholder has the right to…. Blah blah….”
“Transfer of lease…. Only with permission of freeholder and…. Blah blah”
“Usage….. sporting events…. Wasps etc..”
The council would have to presumably grant temporary waivers etc.
That’s why.
tisza
Well-Known Member
Would they like to put this in context with an update statement on their Uni project?
So a portion of the extra fees relate to input from repairing the pitch against other expected standard costs being withheld /delayed in relation to claiming back.
A bit cheeky but explains how we were doing something counter intuitive to the outcome we expected /wanted.
A bit cheeky but explains how we were doing something counter intuitive to the outcome we expected /wanted.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
So the takeaway from this is that CCFC has withheld rent due to them putting a claim in for the cancelled fixtures?
I had suggested previously that they would.
I hope that this hasn’t caused a breach that MA could try to twist. I’d hope unlikely.
CCFC_Irish
Well-Known Member
I can't remember where I read things relating to this anymore but I think they put in a bid of £10m.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Again, I'm not saying the council have screwed SISU, or at least I wasn't. I'm just interested in exactly what they have done here.
But if you're saying that the Council gave advance notice to Ashley about ACL going into adminstration and didn't tell SISU, this so that Ashley got an advantage as the council's 'preferred' bidder, then clearly they're not acting neutrally. That's got echoes of the secret deal to Wasps all over it and does concern me. Not because I love SISU, but because I expect the Council to adhere to proper standards and not get into secret deals and playing favourites.
All of this of course is supposition. SISU haven't said anything yet, and I seriously doubt they had the wherewithal to finance a bid in any case. It's not for the council to get involved though regardless.
Last edited:
robbiethemole
Well-Known Member
Surely MA would want, in Joy and Fisher's terms, 'an unencumbered freehold' in the future so he has total control over everything?
Whilst he's at it, could develop the bottom end of Judd's Lane, ie scrapyard and waste land, plenty of room for another car park, Hotel and helipad.
Whilst he's at it, could develop the bottom end of Judd's Lane, ie scrapyard and waste land, plenty of room for another car park, Hotel and helipad.
The Philosopher
Well-Known Member
You were typing at the same time.
Knowing SISU they would have over played the damages claim but in any event not paid probably at all this season until Rotherham game.
£600k per year rent?
I’m just trying to fathom if the damages claim (pitch and delays) would attach as unsecured against ACL or some kind of contra to lease. Instinct says former.
Looks like CCFC season budget has had a hit.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Lots said in that and lots suggested and implied and lots of newish info clarified. Gonna be an interesting few months
I just don't see why people think that was a facility of the council and not the administrator or even Richardson tbf.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
According to Simon Gilbert they didn’t put in a bid, and recently it’s been stated they tried to talk to the administrators now.
He was discussing refinancing the bonds before Wasps went Tits up - so it could be that Wasps brought him forward.
- Status