That would be very unusual . Every commercial lease I've ever had has reverted to the freeholder in the event of my company going into administration or any other insolvency event and has had restrictions preventing the lease being sold, even as part of the company the lease was initially sold to, without the freeholders permission.
I know CCC take some stick on here but even they can't be stupid enough not to have put such a clause in.
Even if you had paid the lease up front for the full term? If WASPS /ACL use the bond and have paid up in full then there can conceivably be a number of owners of ACL and their assets over the 250 yrs (even if the pay 1 pound for a distressed ACL) until the lease expires and it then reverts to CCC. I'm sure there will be some covenants upon usage etc.. but as long as they are observed that are probably not in default
That would be very unusual . Every commercial lease I've ever had has reverted to the freeholder in the event of my company going into administration or any other insolvency event and has had restrictions preventing the lease being sold, even as part of the company the lease was initially sold to, without the freeholders permission.
I know CCC take some stick on here but even they can't be stupid enough not to have put such a clause in.
In which case its value dives
Even if you had paid the lease up front for the full term? If WASPS /ACL use the bond and have paid up in full then there can conceivably be a number of owners of ACL and their assets over the 250 yrs (even if the pay 1 pound for a distressed ACL) until the lease expires and it then reverts to CCC. I'm sure there will be some covenants upon usage etc.. but as long as they are observed that are probably not in default
I'm not convinced the valuation in the prospectus stands up to any scrutiny anyway. Given that they just purchased ACL and the lease extension for under £7m I'm struggling to see how its now worth enough to provide £35m security, let alone the amount they claim it has been valued at.
It has to be a sale under value then unless WASPS can show, by them being there they bring the added value
It is easy to pick on a few words in isolation. The prospectus , which is the legal offer document, makes clear what is on offer, what the risks are, what the security is and its current value, and what happens in the event of failure etc.
Which again raises questions for CCC and Higgs to answer. Why did they sell it for that price if its market value is over £40m as is now being claimed. Even if Wasps add value, which is debateable they certainly won't add that much value.
Which again raises questions for CCC and Higgs to answer. Why did they sell it for that price if its market value is over £40m as is now being claimed. Even if Wasps add value, which is debateable they certainly won't add that much value.
what is really misleading about that? It is secured by all the assets of ACL which includes a 250 year long lease on the stadium plus certain assets of Wasps Holdings which includes their shares in ACL and the proceeds of any P share disposal. No one else can operate from the Ricoh without Wasps Holdings approval for the next 250 years can they?
Could well be but would the charities commission not be slightly concerned at a charity selling a 50% share in an asset valued at £48.5m for less than £3m?
Am I the only one who understands the Prospectus to be saying that the 250 year lease is not in ACL but in non-trading ACL 2006. If this is correct then any insolvency of ACL would not trigger a forfeiture to the Council?
Am I the only one who understands the Prospectus to be saying that the 250 year lease is not in ACL but in non-trading ACL 2006. If this is correct then any insolvency of ACL would not trigger a forfeiture to the Council?
So you're admitting Wasps have set up non-trading company to hold the only asset of value so that in the event of problems you can further screw everyone by selling to anyone who happens to flash a bit of cash. Sounds very similar to the setup SISU had and were universally criticised for.
Nice to see that in a few posts recently you've shown your true intentions and, I assume, those of Wasps. But I guess we're a few months in now so you don't need to pretend you give a shit about anyone but yourself now :jerkit:
So you're admitting Wasps have set up non-trading company to hold the only asset of value so that in the event of problems you can further screw everyone by selling to anyone who happens to flash a bit of cash. Sounds very similar to the setup SISU had and were universally criticised for.
Nice to see that in a few posts recently you've shown your true intentions and, I assume, those of Wasps. But I guess we're a few months in now so you don't need to pretend you give a shit about anyone but yourself now :jerkit:
Another example of ignorance. The Prospectus, on my understanding and from reading the JR papers, is that the property structure remains as put in place when the Ricoh was built.
Another example of ignorance. The Prospectus, on my understanding and from reading the JR papers, is that the property structure remains as put in place when the Ricoh was built.
Another example of ignorance. The Prospectus, on my understanding and from reading the JR papers, is that the property structure remains as put in place when the Ricoh was built.
The receiver, liquidator may have rights to continue the lease for the purposes of either maintaining the business ( ACL) or to get the best possible value on sale. However, the purchaser still has to satisfy the Freeholder they are of good standing and suitable tenant. In the interim the Receiver is still liable for all rents, service charges etc in the period of his tenure.
I do not know but it is possible the 250 year extension was purely for WASPS and on a failure the lease reverts to the original ACL term. In which case its value dives
I thought someone had said previously that if things go tits up the lease reverts back to CCC as the freeholder.
well there goes any hope some of wasps going bust in the next few years and it shows the market thinks the deal ccc had was a great one (the loan, not the money they got from selling the stadium), they have a riskier deal than the council did for 5% a year less interest.
Don't forget though Noggin. £10m of that is going straight to Richardson, £13m + interests to pay back the loan, then with the remaining £5-8m they have to generate c£2m pa interest (I think that's what someone said earlier in this thread) to pay every one their annual interest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Well I was hopeful, given how glaring obvious some of the questions needing to be asked were, that our local media would get on the case. Seems I'm going to be disappointed as a few days on and we've heard nothing.
well there goes any hope some of wasps going bust in the next few years and it shows the market thinks the deal ccc had was a great one (the loan, not the money they got from selling the stadium), they have a riskier deal than the council did for 5% a year less interest.
Nice bunch the wasps fans...
The 'we've done nothing wrong and it won't hurt anyone else' line of thought is bizarre. Using their own reasons for purchasing ACL they have made it virtually impossible for CCFC to reach a decent level of success and its madness to suggest that having a top tier rugby team in the city is not going to impact on CRFC.
You'd think that having nearly gone out of business and having been in a groundshare situation themselves they would have more of an understanding but it just seems to be we're fine screw everyone else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?