Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
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?
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.
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.
No it's quite obvious.... Wasps would have blocked the sale to administrator in the first place.
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
Comon keep going 40 pages of drivel about nothing associated with our football club. Keep going.
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
OK then. I worked for the Local Government Ombudsman 1994-2001. Job title was Investigator. But not very Magnum like if truth be told.
OK then. I worked for the Local Government Ombudsman 1994-2001. Job title was Investigator. But not very Magnum like if truth be told.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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?
Pretty sure or have proof?
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.
Then investors hope that the security will cover their losses.
If you have a pension, your money has the same risk.
If I know fiver I'd say his comment was firmly tongue in cheek.
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 ?
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.
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 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?
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.
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?
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?