Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (232 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nick

Nick

Administrator
I'm guessing if CCFC made a claim about the pitch and games being off they might be a small / unsecured creditor?
 
The Philosopher

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
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
Click to expand...
I think that many Bondholders invested because it looked a secure investment.

It appears to be borderline miss-selling but I can’t see the precedent of how that could stick.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Fergusons_Beard said:
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
Click to expand...

Thats fair and I totally get those concerns. Again I think the council would be fucking stupid to open themselves up to more Sisu lawsuits. I just also think Sisu haven’t played their strongest hand. They have fan support, they’re riding the crest of a wave with how the team is performing and there’s no appetite in the wider council for more bollocks.

As I said before if it comes out that the council have in any way blocked Sisu from bidding then I’ll borrow your pitchfork. But everything I’ve heard so far is Sisu we’re waiting for liquidation/open admin and you run the risk of being beaten to the punch with that strategy.
 
The Philosopher

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Thats fair and I totally get those concerns. Again I think the council would be fucking stupid to open themselves up to more Sisu lawsuits. I just also think Sisu haven’t played their strongest hand. They have fan support, they’re riding the crest of a wave with how the team is performing and there’s no appetite in the wider council for more bollocks.

As I said before if it comes out that the council have in any way blocked Sisu from bidding then I’ll borrow your pitchfork. But everything I’ve heard so far is Sisu we’re waiting for liquidation/open admin and you run the risk of being beaten to the punch with that strategy.
Click to expand...
Good post.

Particularly the point that SISU were beaten to the punch.

The exclusivity move seems to have stolen the march which has paved the way for the golden rule in litigation:

Whoever has the deepest pockets usually wins.
 
The Philosopher

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
I'm guessing if CCFC made a claim about the pitch and games being off they might be a small / unsecured creditor?
Click to expand...
I think it was more a contra against rents due. (Did I read that somewhere?). CCFC had to get rent up to date and park their contra to get the games on.
 
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Thats fair and I totally get those concerns. Again I think the council would be fucking stupid to open themselves up to more Sisu lawsuits. I just also think Sisu haven’t played their strongest hand. They have fan support, they’re riding the crest of a wave with how the team is performing and there’s no appetite in the wider council for more bollocks.

As I said before if it comes out that the council have in any way blocked Sisu from bidding then I’ll borrow your pitchfork. But everything I’ve heard so far is Sisu we’re waiting for liquidation/open admin and you run the risk of being beaten to the punch with that strategy.
Click to expand...
This is what’s annoyed me. The council have been shifty as fuck getting Ashley in and supporting that bid. But all this time SISU sat on their hands and waiting for it to be worthless.

tbeyve been beaten to the punch again. They need to take it out of the council’s hands and should have matched Ashley’s bid
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
This is what’s annoyed me. The council have been shifty as fuck getting Ashley in and supporting that bid. But all this time SISU sat on their hands and waiting for it to be worthless.

tbeyve been beaten to the punch again. They need to take it out of the council’s hands and should have matched Ashley’s bid
Click to expand...

I honestly think even an interview in the CET saying they want it would have brought a lot of public pressure to bear on the council. As it is they can say “the club are welcome to bid” until the cows come home.

I think throughout this Joy has been really badly advised. Or of course she’s telling the truth and she doesn’t want it unless it’s going dirt cheap, in which case it’s her you need to complain to.
 
SkyblueDad

SkyblueDad

Well-Known Member
I don’t want sisu anywhere near owning the ground and eventually my club, hopefully soon the first part of that statement happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KAB
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Bondholders have raised £15,000 toward their legal representation. I think each bondholder was being asked to contribute 1% of their bond value which would mean that so far £1.5m of bond face value is represented - 4.3% of total which would be insufficient to carry or deny any resolution regarding the bonds. If I was representing ACL that’s the stance that I would take.

Edit, now at £17,008 so represents less than 5% of total face value.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
The Philosopher said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because accusing someone of working for Wasps/SISU/CCC on the basis of a post you might disagree with is a bit juvenile, maybe?

If you want to challenge something he's said, challenge it on the facts, rather than on some assumed motive.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Thats fair and I totally get those concerns. Again I think the council would be fucking stupid to open themselves up to more Sisu lawsuits. I just also think Sisu haven’t played their strongest hand. They have fan support, they’re riding the crest of a wave with how the team is performing and there’s no appetite in the wider council for more bollocks.

As I said before if it comes out that the council have in any way blocked Sisu from bidding then I’ll borrow your pitchfork. But everything I’ve heard so far is Sisu we’re waiting for liquidation/open admin and you run the risk of being beaten to the punch with that strategy.
Click to expand...

Respect that point of view mate, but what I'd say is that it's entirely possible that SISU are incompetent/reckless/broke *and* that the Council have also been doing what they've done in the past, i.e. trying to do backhanded deals and influence things in secret (with similar levels of incompetence).

There's not much I can do about SISU, but personally I hold the Council and its officers to a higher standard.
 
The Philosopher

The Philosopher

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Because accusing someone of working for Wasps/SISU/CCC on the basis of a post you might disagree with is a bit juvenile, maybe?

If you want to challenge something he's said, challenge it on the facts, rather than on some assumed motive.
Click to expand...
?

Show me where I’ve ever accused him of working for either CCC/ SISU / Wasps?

IIRC someone else inferred that he’d previously praised the Wasps finance model. Things change with time, it may have looked fine at the time, clearly events have transpired.

The question was, did anyone invest at the time (I could understand why - looked a safe bet) and was there any inside thoughts.

Perfectly reasonable.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Respect that point of view mate, but what I'd say is that it's entirely possible that SISU are incompetent/reckless/broke *and* that the Council have also been doing what they've done in the past, i.e. trying to do backhanded deals and influence things in secret (with similar levels of incompetence).

There's not much I can do about SISU, but personally I hold the Council and its officers to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

I think the council have different priorities and I think 2014 was a total clusterfuck for a variety of reasons. But I don’t think it’s the same council now and politically the topic is a lot less heated than when Sisu were simultaneously threatening to wind up the club.

The council have been very clear on what they want, but ultimately they can’t really do much to influence the administrator without serious legal issues and despite what people think they do have lawyers look over everything to check it’s legally above board.

I’d just rather any dodginess was forced out rather than alluded to. Put a bid in, make it public, let the council answer awkward questions if it’s not taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
H

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I think the council have different priorities and I think 2014 was a total clusterfuck for a variety of reasons. But I don’t think it’s the same council now and politically the topic is a lot more heated than when Sisu were simultaneously threatening to wind up the club.

The council have been very clear on what they want, but ultimately they can’t really do much to influence the administrator without serious legal issues and despite what people think they do have lawyers look over everything to check it’s legally above board.

I’d just rather any dodginess was forced out rather than alluded to. Put a bid in, make it public, let the council answer awkward questions if it’s not taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Exactly - SISU are always the one backed into a corner, they should have gone on the offensive
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
I agree with shmmeee - SISU are so wrapped up in their own image as these cut-throat business people that they just cannot see the wood for the trees and play the game - the club's image and reputation is miles away from where it was 8-10 years ago and there would be a lot of momentum behind a genuine push to get the club a stake of some sort in the stadium.

You wonder whether the approach they've taken is just a cover for them not having a pot to piss in and being unable to attract anybody to invest / work with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 227 (members: 0, guests: 227)
Top