Sisu make official complaint over Coventry councillors' conduct (2 Viewers)

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

You could make the same defence of Sepalla and Fisher though, they weren't lying they were just saying what they had been told by the other. I'm sure it wouldn't go down well.
If she is commenting on high profile issues in the media then it is her duty to make sure she knows the truth and facts before speaking. So either she was incompetent or she deliberately misled.

Wasn't what she said broadly in line with what the second Judicial Review judge stated, given the extensive information placed before him at the time?

 

---

[Intheknow]

Intheknow doesn't know about the Veto?

How does a veto right make a sale conditional? I have read nothing that said anything other than the Council sale of its shares took place in October. Where has it been said this was conditional.

 

[Grendel]

How does a veto right make a sale conditional? I have read nothing that said anything other than the Council sale of its shares took place in October. Where has it been said this was conditional.

It means they could veto the sale of the Higgs shares to anyone other than them -- as you well know.

When the deal went through PWKH on the radio blurted out that the deal was for 100% as they were selling to Wasps.

 

[italiahorse]

No it's quite obvious.... Wasps would have blocked the sale to administrator in the first place.

How could the administrator actually buy the Higgs share when the part of the club in administration still had outstanding debts. Surely if any money came in other parties would have priority on that money ? With those debts outstanding how can you go out and buy something ? So many questions on that process!!

 

[wingy]

As long as they serve the interest payments on the existing bond scheme; there will be other investors readied to invest in another bonds issue in seven years' time. If they have excess revenues, the bond need raise a smaller sum next time - so the £35m can be repaid in a mix of cash plus new bond scheme. They could - provided they're paying the interest - spin this wheel three of four times to pay the sum down to zero. this wouldn't be a term that different to a commercial mortgage on borrowings of this size in any case

I guess that method would be a similar term tithe original 20 yrs
Did surprise me that they curtailed it down to 7

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I guess that method would be a similar term tithe original 20 yrs
Did surprise me that they curtailed it down to 7

Too long for a bond against others in the market. You'd need a hell of a promise to keep people's equity tied up for that long. The route they took gave them the equity they needed with a term that suits. Whilst still leaving room for other or subsequent bond issues to suit their purpose

 

[LB87ccfc]

Comon keep going 40 pages of drivel about nothing associated with our football club. Keep going.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Comon keep going 40 pages of drivel about nothing associated with our football club. Keep going.

OK then. I worked for the Local Government Ombudsman 1994-2001. Job title was Investigator. But not very Magnum like if truth be told.

 

[fernandopartridge]

As long as they serve the interest payments on the existing bond scheme; there will be other investors readied to invest in another bonds issue in seven years' time. If they have excess revenues, the bond need raise a smaller sum next time - so the £35m can be repaid in a mix of cash plus new bond scheme. They could - provided they're paying the interest - spin this wheel three of four times to pay the sum down to zero. this wouldn't be a term that different to a commercial mortgage on borrowings of this size in any case

It'll be interesting to see how it performs. Do you know whether investors are entitled to their full investment back. I've read that the bonds can be traded which suggests their price isn't fixed or guaranteed.

 

[LB87ccfc]

OK then. I worked for the Local Government Ombudsman 1994-2001. Job title was Investigator. But not very Magnum like if truth be told.

Does not count Michael.

 

[Nick]

OK then. I worked for the Local Government Ombudsman 1994-2001. Job title was Investigator. But not very Magnum like if truth be told.

Much more Calippo if you ask me

 

[James Smith]

There's a difference between Fisher shooting off some comment to the CT and what you are suggesting. Of course if SISU have done anything illegal I would expect them to be punished but you're actually proving my point. SISU have only to not break the law, they have no responsibility to anyone else.

That isn't the case for CCC. Simply stating they haven't broken the law does not absolve them of blame. As a public body accountable to the electorate they should be held to a higher standard and conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach. They quite simply haven't done this, they have even been found out and yet are still give a free pass by some.

Sports teams should not be moved away from their fans. Not CCFC or Wasps.

 

[Intheknow]

It'll be interesting to see how it performs. Do you know whether investors are entitled to their full investment back. I've read that the bonds can be traded which suggests their price isn't fixed or guaranteed.

the Bonds carry interest at 6.5% which has to paid twice a year. In seven years, the Bond is repaid on a pound for pound basis. If there is money to do so.

 

[fernandopartridge]

the Bonds carry interest at 6.5% which has to paid twice a year. In seven years, the Bond is repaid on a pound for pound basis. If there is money to do so.

Yes. If there isn't money to pay the annual interest what happens?

If Wasps can't repay the investor at the end of the term what happens?

 

[Grendel]

Yes. If there isn't money to pay the annual interest what happens?

If Wasps can't repay the investor at the end of the term what happens?

They don't get their money

 

[oldfiver]

They don't get their money

Dont worry the complex is worth £48million so they just sell it to pay the bondholders

 

[Grendel]

Dont worry the complex is worth £48million so they just sell it to pay the bondholders

Not so actually as if they go under ACL reverts back to the original lease and the asset value collapses

 

[fernandopartridge]

Not so actually as if they go under ACL reverts back to the original lease and the asset value collapses

If I know fiver I'd say his comment was firmly tongue in cheek.

 

[Intheknow]

Yes. If there isn't money to pay the annual interest what happens?

If Wasps can't repay the investor at the end of the term what happens?

Then investors hope that the security will cover their losses.

If you have a pension, your money has the same risk.

 

[Intheknow]

Not so actually as if they go under ACL reverts back to the original lease and the asset value collapses

I am pretty sure that the Prospectus says that the 250 year lease is in the non trading company ACL 2006. So you are wrong again.

 

[stupot07]

I am pretty sure that the Prospectus says that the 250 year lease is in the non trading company ACL 2006. So you are wrong again.

Pretty sure or have proof?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[chiefdave]

Yes. If there isn't money to pay the annual interest what happens?

If Wasps can't repay the investor at the end of the term what happens?

Just google Michael McIndoe and you'll get the idea

Basically part of the new debt they've created is money to pay the interest. If they aren't completely stupid, and the jurys out on that one, they will ring fence that money so the interest can be paid.

They don't need to repay everyone until the scheme ends. Don't be surprised if there's another bond issue to pay back the initial bond issue at that point. Depending how Wasps and ACL are performing then they may need to borrow even more to cover the costs of running the companies. Of course where it all collapses is if they can't get enough subscribers to a future bond issue to pay back the current investors.

 

[chiefdave]

Pretty sure or have proof?

For someone who's supposed to be intheknow there's a lot of uncertainly in his posts. For Wasps sake I really hope he's not someone involved on the business side, god help them if he is!

 

[Intheknow]

Pretty sure or have proof?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

have a a squint at page 17 of the Prospectus re 250 year lease and the fact that ACL 2006 hold it.

have a squint at page 3 of the Prospectus re Moonstone and ownership, no hedge fund.

have a squint at any of my posts, all are correct.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

have a a squint at page 17 of the Prospectus re 250 year lease and the fact that ACL 2006 hold it.

have a squint at page 3 of the Prospectus re Moonstone and ownership, no hedge fund.

have a squint at any of my posts, all are correct.

I just had a squint at page 268, Wasps accounts for the six months to 31.12.14, they say Richardson has no intention of asking for repayment of his £18m loan during 2015, yet the prospectus also says up to £10m can be repaid to him from the bond. Which statement is correct?

 

[Astute]

Then investors hope that the security will cover their losses.

If you have a pension, your money has the same risk.

So what do you know about pensions? Because this statement is wrong.

 

[oldfiver]

If I know fiver I'd say his comment was firmly tongue in cheek.

What a reputation to have :sarcasm:

 

[oldfiver]

Not so actually as if they go under ACL reverts back to the original lease and the asset value collapses

Is that what the agreement says or does it say the Council "can" do that ?

 

[skybluetony176]

Is that what the agreement says or does it say the Council "can" do that ?

I think it actually says that the lease reverts back to the Council rather than ACL, which the council only ever owned half of anyway.

 

[Grendel]

have a a squint at page 17 of the Prospectus re 250 year lease and the fact that ACL 2006 hold it.

have a squint at page 3 of the Prospectus re Moonstone and ownership, no hedge fund.

have a squint at any of my posts, all are correct.

It is very odd you point to page 17 as that says what I said. In the case of insolvency the 250 year lease reverts back to the original 38 year lease which would lower values significantly and heighten risk. Something the prospectus admits. Didn't you understand that when you read it?

As to moonstone on page 3 it's says solely owned by Richardson which I believe means the parent company that owns it is his. Where does it say it's not a hedge fund?

 

[Astute]

As to moonstone on page 3 it's says solely owned by Richardson which I believe means the parent company that owns it is his. Where does it say it's not a hedge fund?

I recently read something about the company you say you work for. It didn't say it is a hedge fund so it must be one.

 

[Grendel]

I recently said something about the company you say you work for. It didn't say it is a hedge fund so it must be one.

So you believe In The Know do you?

Why?

 

[Astute]

So you believe In The Know do you?

Why?

A few posts back on this thread I said he was wrong then you come out with a comment like that. Just shows you only read and understand what you want.

 

[Grendel]

A few posts back on this thread I said he was wrong then you come out with a comment like that. Just shows you only read and understand what you want.

Well no he quoted page 3 of the bond articles that as it doesn't say moonstone isn't a hedge fund that's proof.

You make some stupid comment to support him quoting an automotive firm. Moonstone is a financial institution regulated by Maltese law of that there is no doubt.

Just found your defence of him and quoting an automotive firm odd.

 

[oldfiver]

It is very odd you point to page 17 as that says what I said. In the case of insolvency the 250 year lease reverts back to the original 38 year lease which would lower values significantly and heighten risk. Something the prospectus admits. Didn't you understand that when you read it?

"CCC have reserved the right to forfeit the Head Lease if ACL2006 becomes insolvent"

What the King Wasp is saying, is the lease is inside ACL 2006 Ltd and it is only if THAT company is insolvent do CCC have any right to forfeiture
Even then it does not say they will only they have reserved the right etc. But there are legal hurdles to hop to even achieve that
So what are the chances of 2006 becoming insolvent?