Wasps downward spiral... (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter CCFC54321
- Start date
FulltimeWum
Well-Known Member
In the latest twist to the will they won't they saga Binley Mega Chippy have announced that they won't be making a new CBS meal. The staff who were unavailable for comment have disclosed to members of internet forum that making food is important but they can't pledge allegiance to a stadium.
This has caused great alarm amongst local council members. Again speaking off record, one member has labelled this a deriliction of duty.
REVEALED: NEW BENCH OPEN NEXT TO CANAL
Despite the lack of food dedicated to a lump of concrete, we have no foundations to write an article about the reported irregularities and inconsistencies within the London Wasps accounts.
This has caused great alarm amongst local council members. Again speaking off record, one member has labelled this a deriliction of duty.
REVEALED: NEW BENCH OPEN NEXT TO CANAL
Despite the lack of food dedicated to a lump of concrete, we have no foundations to write an article about the reported irregularities and inconsistencies within the London Wasps accounts.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
That concrete sofa has been there for years.
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
FulltimeWum
Well-Known Member
Where is this? Is it the inspiration for Jurrasic Five's work?
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Huh
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
I think there is probably still a story here, but it is one that still needs to see the light of day.
ACL (2006) has done the same thing as the other two companies and someone has showed cause not to have the company wound-up.
Whether it was Companies House or another company which started the notice to wind-up, or the company themselves or other companies which stopped the winding-up is still to be worked out.
ACL (2006) has done the same thing as the other two companies and someone has showed cause not to have the company wound-up.
Whether it was Companies House or another company which started the notice to wind-up, or the company themselves or other companies which stopped the winding-up is still to be worked out.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
However, one thing that is 100% categorically true, I believe, is that each company has had a notice of winding-up against them which could make it is easier for another company to regain control of the lease.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That’s not true though?
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Help me out here Grendel because my business knowledge isn't that great.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well it’s all guesswork
Clearly there was some issue with the accounts.
The only thing we know is that clearly there’s some issue with refinancing
there’s a strong hint as well more than one funding source is needed to raise the full amount
I don’t personally see the Head Lease being sold to a third party or surely that would have been leaked
I can’t believe they would make a statement regarding the loan payback to investors and not achieve it - it’s just inconceivable - they’ve even mentioned the loan provider
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Late interest payments and bond not being repaid when it was due, then I would agree, this has a high probability.
Head Lease can be returned to Coventry City Council in the event of the winding-up order, as what is in the prospectus. I can't remember the exact wording.
I wonder if this criteria has now been reached if actions require it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
no and it’s not an automatic right - sorry you are just seeing things that aren’t there
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Surely this action can now be taken, I'm not saying it will, before the automatic rights of the bondholders come into force when another notice of a winding-up order has been issued in a worse case scenario.
Again, I am not saying that this is happening, but there must be a reason for all this.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
no it can’t as the business hasnt defaulted
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
I can't see anything in the prospectus about a default being needed before a winding-up order for CCC to act if they required it. Just on a winding-up order.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
I could be wrong.
duffer
Well-Known Member
So here's the relevant section of the Bond Prospectus:
Under the terms of the head lease granted by Coventry City Council (“CCC”) to Arena Coventry (2006) Limited (“ACL2006”) in respect of the Arena (the “Head Lease”), CCC have reserved the right to forfeit the Head Lease if ACL2006 becomes insolvent.
Insolvency in this scenario means a situation where ACL2006 becomes unable to pay its debts, has a receiver/administrator/provisional liquidator appointed over its assets, has assets seized in order to pay debts of ACL2006 or has a winding-up order made against it.
The effect of forfeiture would be that the 250 year Head Lease would fall away and that ACL would then become the tenant of CCC at the Arena for the remaining 38 years of its existing lease.
However, the right of CCC to claim forfeiture of the Head Lease is not an automatic right.
If CCC made a claim for such forfeiture, this could be contested by ACL2006, any third party that held security over ACL2006 and any subtenants of ACL2006 by making application to a court in England. Further, if an administrator was to be appointed over the assets of ACL2006, then CCC would not be able to forfeit the Head Lease without the consent of the appointed administrator or with the leave of the courts.
If forfeiture was to take place prior to maturity of the Bonds, then U.S. Bank Trustees Limited, the entity that will hold the security on behalf of Bondholders, may not be in a position to assign the Head Lease for value in the event CCC forfeited the lease as described in the preceding paragraph. This may have an impact on the Bondholders’ ability to receive full repayment of their investment in the Bonds on the occurrence of such an insolvency event.
Under the terms of the head lease granted by Coventry City Council (“CCC”) to Arena Coventry (2006) Limited (“ACL2006”) in respect of the Arena (the “Head Lease”), CCC have reserved the right to forfeit the Head Lease if ACL2006 becomes insolvent.
Insolvency in this scenario means a situation where ACL2006 becomes unable to pay its debts, has a receiver/administrator/provisional liquidator appointed over its assets, has assets seized in order to pay debts of ACL2006 or has a winding-up order made against it.
The effect of forfeiture would be that the 250 year Head Lease would fall away and that ACL would then become the tenant of CCC at the Arena for the remaining 38 years of its existing lease.
However, the right of CCC to claim forfeiture of the Head Lease is not an automatic right.
If CCC made a claim for such forfeiture, this could be contested by ACL2006, any third party that held security over ACL2006 and any subtenants of ACL2006 by making application to a court in England. Further, if an administrator was to be appointed over the assets of ACL2006, then CCC would not be able to forfeit the Head Lease without the consent of the appointed administrator or with the leave of the courts.
If forfeiture was to take place prior to maturity of the Bonds, then U.S. Bank Trustees Limited, the entity that will hold the security on behalf of Bondholders, may not be in a position to assign the Head Lease for value in the event CCC forfeited the lease as described in the preceding paragraph. This may have an impact on the Bondholders’ ability to receive full repayment of their investment in the Bonds on the occurrence of such an insolvency event.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Its not actually a winding up order
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
Y
Yet!
duffer
Well-Known Member
In short then, this is the way I see it.
If Wasps can't refinance the bond, the primary security is the 250-year head-lease held by ACL (for the purposes of this, ACL and ACL (2006), who actually hold the lease can be considered the same).
One scenario is that the bond holders take ownership of the head-lease and sell it to recover as much of the debt as possible. They could sell to whomever they choose, obviously.
Perhaps the other scenario is that ACL goes into administration. If that happens, the head-lease could revert to the council, but it leaves the bond-holders completely out of pocket so I'd fancy that results in a court challenge.
Either way though, if refinancing fails, you'd have to think that the head-lease for the stadium ends up in someone else's hands - that was the whole point of offering it as security. It's an enormous blow for Wasps if that happens, I think, because they're reliant on the income derived from the lease.
For CCFC, I still think the overall picture here would be positive. Whoever takes over the lease is still going to want CCFC to play at the stadium. It might even be that CCFC would try to buy the lease themselves at a discount. The only people who really lose are Wasps, because at best they become tenants too.
Last point: If refinancing was straightforward, it would have been in place long before now. The deadline has been known since the bonds were issued. The fact that it's been missed, and the late filing of accounts all points to Wasps being under serious pressure. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
If Wasps can't refinance the bond, the primary security is the 250-year head-lease held by ACL (for the purposes of this, ACL and ACL (2006), who actually hold the lease can be considered the same).
One scenario is that the bond holders take ownership of the head-lease and sell it to recover as much of the debt as possible. They could sell to whomever they choose, obviously.
Perhaps the other scenario is that ACL goes into administration. If that happens, the head-lease could revert to the council, but it leaves the bond-holders completely out of pocket so I'd fancy that results in a court challenge.
Either way though, if refinancing fails, you'd have to think that the head-lease for the stadium ends up in someone else's hands - that was the whole point of offering it as security. It's an enormous blow for Wasps if that happens, I think, because they're reliant on the income derived from the lease.
For CCFC, I still think the overall picture here would be positive. Whoever takes over the lease is still going to want CCFC to play at the stadium. It might even be that CCFC would try to buy the lease themselves at a discount. The only people who really lose are Wasps, because at best they become tenants too.
Last point: If refinancing was straightforward, it would have been in place long before now. The deadline has been known since the bonds were issued. The fact that it's been missed, and the late filing of accounts all points to Wasps being under serious pressure. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Can't see anyway CCFC buy the lease. Even if the owners did Id imagine we'd still be a tenant, albeit one whose tenancy was a lot more secure than currently.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
There are the facts of the finances, but then there is the experience and lifestyle of owning a Rugby club in a large English city.
If you were in charge of things and even though you were losing money, the council would prop you up and defend you (probably using local tax payers money), the local media won't publish anything negative about you, and even at one stage fans of the hosted football club were coming to watch you - wouldn't that feel a bit God like? I might be going off on a bit of a tangent here, but there are a lot of factors which don't offer any incentive for the Wasps hierarchy to leave whatsoever.
There are alarm bells going off everywhere here, and given the information posted by certain members of this forum and their exchanges with journalists, there is obviously some sort of cover up going on given their defensiveness, willingness to block people, and flat out denial that there is anything worth reporting on.
'I´m on holiday'
'The Jubilee is more important, I will write about it in a few weeks'
'I don't cover Wasps'
'I'm going to block you now for asking a reasonable question'
No doubt there will be some of these journalists reading this thread, well, we are watching you too. The whole Wasps affair has been a dodgy shit show from start to finish (that is putting it politely), and we won't forget it. It isn't too late to do the right thing.
If you were in charge of things and even though you were losing money, the council would prop you up and defend you (probably using local tax payers money), the local media won't publish anything negative about you, and even at one stage fans of the hosted football club were coming to watch you - wouldn't that feel a bit God like? I might be going off on a bit of a tangent here, but there are a lot of factors which don't offer any incentive for the Wasps hierarchy to leave whatsoever.
There are alarm bells going off everywhere here, and given the information posted by certain members of this forum and their exchanges with journalists, there is obviously some sort of cover up going on given their defensiveness, willingness to block people, and flat out denial that there is anything worth reporting on.
'I´m on holiday'
'The Jubilee is more important, I will write about it in a few weeks'
'I don't cover Wasps'
'I'm going to block you now for asking a reasonable question'
No doubt there will be some of these journalists reading this thread, well, we are watching you too. The whole Wasps affair has been a dodgy shit show from start to finish (that is putting it politely), and we won't forget it. It isn't too late to do the right thing.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
There's been a lot of much welcome positivity around the city recently but this saga remains an absolute stain.
Time for certain people to, as you point out, do the right thing.
duffer
Well-Known Member
So many variables it's hard to know for sure. Reuniting the ground and the club even under an OpCo/PropCo (Operating Company/Property owning Company) umbrella would have to be beneficial you'd think. Access to those ACL revenues has always been the key issue, apparently.
Even if we build our own stadium elsewhere I doubt the club will over own it as a single company now, it just doesn't seem to be the way our current owners would structure it.
However, just to bring it back on track, I still don't see Wasps losing control of the lease as being a bad thing if that's what ultimately happens. Whatever they'd like to think, CCFC is still by far the biggest draw in the city, and that puts us in the box seat with whomever might end up with the lease, imho.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Yeah, you'd be mad not to want CCFC there.
But as much as I want Wasps gone I can't help but think if they do go it's going to bring its own set of issues for the club.
Well said. Always an excuse to not doing something. If London wasps had just signed half the all blacks team he would be on that like shit off a stick within minutes. Holiday, honeymoon wouldn’t hold him back. If SISU were to invest £5b into CCFC that wouldn’t get a mention until two days later and a negative spin put over it.
It’s disgusting.
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
It's like having an interest only mortgage and then after 25 years telling your bank, 'Yer, haven't quite sorted out the repayment yet, can I have a bit longer?'.
I'm rather glad I don't have any bond investment as the stress must be huge.
No idea what will happen next mind you.
duffer
Well-Known Member
For Wasps, it looks a bit like that line....
“How did you go bankrupt?”
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly!”
If they do get refinancing, then anyway it stacks up it'll have to be a bigger drain on their business. They've also sold off a slice of their future profits to CVC, they've got diminishing crowds, and they are having less success on the pitch.
Their single white knight and ultimate owner, Richardson, might well run out of interest (or funds) and has in any case has been trying to pull back some of the debt owed to him (which was partly the point of the bonds).
If they can't refinance, then I think it just brings things to a head a bit more quickly, but either way I suspect at some point they'll find themselves in a hole they can't crawl out of.
It could be that someone as yet unknown comes to their rescue, of course, but then we've been hoping for the same thing for a long time now!
“How did you go bankrupt?”
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly!”
If they do get refinancing, then anyway it stacks up it'll have to be a bigger drain on their business. They've also sold off a slice of their future profits to CVC, they've got diminishing crowds, and they are having less success on the pitch.
Their single white knight and ultimate owner, Richardson, might well run out of interest (or funds) and has in any case has been trying to pull back some of the debt owed to him (which was partly the point of the bonds).
If they can't refinance, then I think it just brings things to a head a bit more quickly, but either way I suspect at some point they'll find themselves in a hole they can't crawl out of.
It could be that someone as yet unknown comes to their rescue, of course, but then we've been hoping for the same thing for a long time now!
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
If the council end up in court because of the arena and not by sisu again I will piss my bladder out.