HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Wasps holdings sell the lease for £1 to an offshore hedge fund in Malta, and then says you can fight over the £1?
Wasps holdings sell the lease for £1 to an offshore hedge fund in Malta, and then says you can fight over the £1?The way security was written about in the prospectus always seemed a bit off to me but I assumed it was just going over my head and as I wasn't about to hand them thousands of my own money not an issue.
How would it work in practice? Wasps say we're going to offer you 20p in the £, to pick a random figure, the bondholders say hold on we've got security. They then try and enforce that security and get the lease sold to recover their money, what happens then?
Could they sell the lease to one of the other companies under the umbrella for a nominal fee? Essentially wapsretain the lease and write off the debt to the bond holders?The way security was written about in the prospectus always seemed a bit off to me but I assumed it was just going over my head and as I wasn't about to hand them thousands of my own money not an issue.
How would it work in practice? Wasps say we're going to offer you 20p in the £, to pick a random figure, the bondholders say hold on we've got security. They then try and enforce that security and get the lease sold to recover their money, what happens then?
That only covers 6m though. I assume if 1 bondholder bought 18m's worth, they'd control the consent solicitation?There are I thought I read somewhere 3,000 bond holders exist - most I’d assume have £2,000 in it purchased through a broker. It’s difficult to get a collective response through a vast amount of people
If there are any institutional investors with large stakes we are for a treat.That only covers 6m though. I assume if 1 bondholder bought 18m's worth, they'd control the consent solicitation?
sounds like fraud. Moving an asset at less than market value (which they've set themselves in accounts and bond doc)Wasps holdings sell the lease for £1 to an offshore hedge fund in Malta, and then says you can fight over the £1?
I don’t think the majority (by value)of bondholders are supporters.Could they sell the lease to one of the other companies under the umbrella for a nominal fee? Essentially wapsretain the lease and write off the debt to the bond holders?
One way or another they are going to use the good faith of most of the bond holders being supporters and the difficulty in bond holders organising to effectively write the debt off, I’m sure.
It’s 75% by value, so to guarantee control without any other support they would need £26.25 million. On the other hand, to guarantee non acceptance would only (!) take £8.8 million.That only covers 6m though. I assume if 1 bondholder bought 18m's worth, they'd control the consent solicitation?
Fingers crossedI don’t think the majority (by value)of bondholders are supporters.
sounds like fraud. Moving an asset at less than market value (which they've set themselves in accounts and bond doc)
The charge over the arena is held by the trustees who are US Bank Trustees Ltd. They will have a responsibility to get the best deal for the bondholders - selling for £1 would damage their reputation.Wasps holdings sell the lease for £1 to an offshore hedge fund in Malta, and then says you can fight over the £1?
Must have said Bobby can't have a free shirt this year. Well at this rate nobody will have a shirt at all as they don't seem to have any kit'Absolute bin fire': Wasps criticised by former employee
Pete Nuttall was the voice of Wasps for more than 20 years prior to the 2021/22 seasonwww.coventrytelegraph.net
"What an absolute bin fire Wasps Rugby is at the moment," he said in a Tweet. "The coaches, players and fans have been utterly let down by completely shambolic stewardship. They deserve so much better."
A number of fans engaged with Nuttall's post who shared his concerns about the Black and Golds. He responded to one by saying: "Once the old guard of supporters are disengaged, and the new supporters that they’ve lumped all their hopes on don’t materialise, what then?"
'Absolute bin fire': Wasps criticised by former employee
Pete Nuttall was the voice of Wasps for more than 20 years prior to the 2021/22 seasonwww.coventrytelegraph.net
"What an absolute bin fire Wasps Rugby is at the moment," he said in a Tweet. "The coaches, players and fans have been utterly let down by completely shambolic stewardship. They deserve so much better."
A number of fans engaged with Nuttall's post who shared his concerns about the Black and Golds. He responded to one by saying: "Once the old guard of supporters are disengaged, and the new supporters that they’ve lumped all their hopes on don’t materialise, what then?"
..... have they stopped paying The Telegraph for advertising space?....
think they've stopped paying everyone..... have they stopped paying The Telegraph for advertising space?....
Players and staff?think they've stopped paying everyone
think they've stopped paying everyone
Is it 75% of the total or 75% of those who reply? If a large amount are held by brokers who don't pass the info on then surely its near impossible to get 75% to agree, unless by default the brokers just agree to anything unless they are instructed otherwise.Secondly, is it correct that any decision on whether to extend the period for the bond to be repaid would require 75% of value of the bonds owners to agree? That's circa £26.25M
What makes me laugh is that apparently this is all bollocks - and the speculation is driven by Coventry city fans…. I thought all football fans were Neanderthals, why would anyone listen to us
From what I have read, it does seem that the majority of bonds are held by brokers on behalf of their clients. It appears that a number of holders were not made aware of the previous consent solicitation ( which made some of Wasps financial KPIs less onerous) and they are unhappy about it. Of course, all bondholders are well aware that £35 million did not appear in their bank accounts in May and hence are being more proactive this time.I would be interested to hear what someone more knowledgable than me on these matters has to say. My understanding is that most of the bonds will be held by brokers on behalf of their clients AND those clients will need to communicate directly with those brokers, as to their views.
Secondly, is it correct that any decision on whether to extend the period for the bond to be repaid would require 75% of value of the bonds owners to agree? That's circa £26.25M
Apologies if someone has already answered these points
Don't really know .How would administration or CVA work with the bond? If they just turn round to bondholders and say, for example, we'll give you 50p in the £ why would they accept when they have security? Unless there's not enough security to cover the bonds you're not accepting less are you?
Are the bonds effectively locked permanently ?
Holder's never able to shift them through their own efforts.
The trustees can call in the security on default, and could have already done that but are holding off for now to see what Wasps can offer on revised terms. I am surprised Premier League Rugby haven’t got involved as Wasps must have broken the regulations about financial probity and stability.Don't really know .
But don't they get 5yr window to pay down on it.
I just did don't see going forward how they would generate that amount even with a reduction on all of it.
Which bondholders aren’t happy about.Yeah they're unlisted at the minute
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?