Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (91 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
ajsccfc

ajsccfc

Well-Known Member
Michael Byng is wiring his bid of four hundred shillings and all the riches of Mesopotamia from his palatial home in Ceylon.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
oldfiver said:
On a liquidation a Liquidator can act but he cannot undermine the BH security position

The BondHolders can sell to who they want
Click to expand...
Taken direct from the prospectus

Risks relating the head lease of the Arena granted to ACL2006

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.
 
Hiraeth

Hiraeth

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
All sounds corrupt as fuck.

I'm going to raise a bond scheme to get £50m to bid for CCFC.

I'm going to secure that against Sky Blues Talk which an independent valuator (a pigeon that just flew past towards the east not the west) agreed is currently worth £100m.

Sound.
Click to expand...
Surely Greggs Owl would be a wiser choice to value Sky Blues Talk than a pigeon?
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
Taken direct from the prospectus

Risks relating the head lease of the Arena granted to ACL2006

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.
Click to expand...


Lots of "Mays"
Would depend on a Court to decide - if necessary - CCC might not object
 
Flying Fokker

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
I'm starting to think ACL being liquidated is the best option for us.

Hopefully it would open it up to more potential people who would then want to have the club too and effectively a fresh start with it all.
Click to expand...

i saw one example of a bond holder who had 170k holding. I suppose he’ll have hold of a worthless certificate.
 
The Philosopher

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
So it would then be in the bondholders complete power to sell the lease to whoever, debt free once they are paid?
Click to expand...
Looks like the Bondholders could do worse than find an alternative partner.

The fact is company number 04187289 (Wasps) has gone (think of it as just a company number for a minute) and the creditors of the group (including Richardson) want the proceeds of the sale of the Arena Lease.

The Bondholders are in the strongest position because they have security (which is being argued but I still think is strong. I get criticism on here but DGAF. Let me explain: it was sold as being secure but there were loopholes. Think PPI - was sold as one thing and it was ruled the sale was misleading. Nothing is straightforward in commercial law).

It smells of a strong-arming. “Accept this or you’ll get nothing”

“The lease will revert to CCC”.

Who is going to blink first?
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
tisza said:
That's the issue bondholders are missing. They don't know the ratio between asset value and asset income value. They just keep assuming it will sell for the whole valuation amount but the "glossy" income that was in the Wasps brochure didn't stand up and that the facility is in A1 condition.
Click to expand...
To be fair this is good for us. Brings administration into play if Ashley throws a tantrum and pulls out
 
D

djr8369

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
There's a scenario there where the next 10 plus years are Ashley and Sepalla using the club as a pawn in an ongoing dispute, we know how well that kind of thing turns out for the club.
Click to expand...
This has been my worry. SISU will want the most money they can get and MA will want to pay as little as possible and neither will play nice.
chiefdave said:
I'm not convinced he would be. Wasps were broke and realised they needed us here, same can't be said of Ashley.

Without knowing his motives for buying the stadium how he will act as a landlord is very much an unknown.

He doesn't seem to have involvement in similar businesses we can look to as a guide
Click to expand...
If he’s landlord only he will surely be looking to gain as much in rent as possible unless his income is linked to F&B and such so his goal is to drive visitors rather than just take the highest rent payment.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
shmmeee said:
Is he the same bloke involved in that HS2 report that was supposed to be a bit dodgy as well?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know, but he certainly likes chatting HS2 on twitter.

He likes a crusade doesn't he. A bit like Joe Rukin, GMKMrAngry in that respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 89 (members: 0, guests: 89)
Top