An exclusivity clause is neither illegal, unusual or unreasonable especially in privately owned companies. I assume for exclusivity to be active then the fee has been paid. Administrators or whoever running the process are required contractually to block other interest, better or otherwise. Such a fee is also an indication of serious funded interest isn't it?
The story isn't the exclusivity clause Ashley has and his offer but how the hell Richardson & wasps got the bondholders in the position where the bond is not covered by assets
Had bigger/better offers that stood up to scrutiny materialised before it was enacted then the administrator would have had to considered them. But they haven't it would seem, certainly everything we have been told so far is that other bidders wanted to wait for administration so where were these prevented better offers? NEC the only other serious bid or interest received, it seems, chose to pull out.
These bidders can't have it all ways, if they were not confident or simply playing a waiting game then they had their chance to at least test the administrators resolve and chose not to. Got no choice but to let it play out now. Wonder what value the bondholders will place on the assets in administration or worse?
Just stirring the pot by Gilbert I think
Come Friday ACL could be in administration on the verge of liquidation & closure. Or in administration, with bondholders being paid part and the stadium operational under a new owner.
Right now I am seriously concerned as to what lays next for CCFC. Hopefully those worries never materialise
But we shall see come the end of the week and next week
As someone previously said the Bondholders real claim is against Richardson, Wasps, the underwriters etc for being misled if they can prove it. The bond Trustees i am sure are going to have obtained lots of legal advice on whether they could challenge or not. If they get it wrong then they could be liable for any shortfall