That Simon Gilbert is such a numpty. He is lucky to be working in a regional paper that has a 4 figure readership otherwise he would be out faster than a slippery turd.
Will the next big discovery be that they've found out the bondholders have a charge on the lease? FFS, we've been ahead of this story for months on here...
| TheSimonGilbert
6 Oct '22 - 11:09 - 1114 of 1120 |
Will the next big discovery be that they've found out the bondholders have a charge on the lease? FFS, we've been ahead of this story for months on here...
We need something to go our way !To be fair the ccc insolvency clause has been raised on here many times since the bond was taken out. Its only been known for over 7 years though.
Of course ccc are taking legal advice, I would think that started months ago when wasps defaulted..... or it should have done
He is trying to engage with bond holders
I'd be interested in hearing what you think the implications of this are for you as bondholders.
TheSimonGilbert
6 Oct '22 - 11:09 - 1114 of 1120
Coventry City Council 'may have right to force stadium ownership' forfeit.
Wasps 'could have to forfeit stadium ownership'
Only solution for wasps that makes sense to me is to carve out the acl group in some way. Then wasps holdings repay the bond from proceeds. Both wasps and ccfc have leases to play at the stadium so that gives acl some worth. A new owner would then take on the acl assets including 250 year lease agreement. Settle the trading debts if they keep the company.
Not as simple as that because of the old debt on acl and any inter company debts. But that would be the general direction I would look to take. Also not just the bondholders with a charge on acl, compass still do too. Hesitate to argue it though because not sure it generates enough cash to clear all the debts or if there is enough value there to make it work.
Just thoughts
Could refinance acl for part of it to make it work the numbers might be smaller. It is afterall the rugby side that is the biggest drain on finances
Richardson debt is in wasps holdings. The paye debt on players wages and some staff is in wasps holdings. Could probably repay the latter, the owner almost certainly not - is that a sticking point in what is going on ?
Ccc could be taking legal advice as to whether a proposed new owner of the lease is acceptable to transfer it to, not just insolvency advice because of the bond clause problem
It is all focused on hmrc and bond but the liabilities that need clearing are much more than that.
Wasps go bust the value of the stadium tumbles, can be picked up cheaper yes but stadium would lose some incomes that underpin value that might not come back. It would mean a lot of creditors missing out. Reputational damage to the stadium by association with wasps insolvency would be huge.
I would suspect a lot of current creditors wouldn't deal with wasps again, but would deal with new owners
I would love the stadium to be free from the shysters but no guarantee it wouldn't be sold to someone equally as bad.
Could sisu be part of a scheme to own it yes but only through a wasps insolvency.... too expensive otherwise. I dont see ccfc ever owning it, simply haven't got the financial ability to run it and the team. Could sisu take it and flip it all to a new owner of club and stadium it's possible yes but only if wasps go in to administration, would they want wasps gone possibly not because if the intention is to sell up then wasps being there paying rent would add some value. Does wasps in administration break the lease wasps rugby has to be there ? If so last point academic
Going to stop there am tying myself up in knots let alone anyone else
Are HMRC further up the pecking order than the bond holders ?Agreed. It's starting to make the hunt the for the golden share look straightforward!
Are HMRC further up the pecking order than the bond holders ?
Without getting bogged down in the nitty-gritty, am I right to assume that however this pans out, Wasps are highly unlikely to be our landlords going forward?
No one knows
Are HMRC further up the pecking order than the bond holders ?
I think that is what they are trying to do, and it is the fact that ACL 2006 filed their NOI two weeks after Wasps Holdings and ACL that makes me think so. That will have been by design and not accident and (a) keeps the bondholders off their backs for up to 4 weeks (subject to an accepted second filing for ACL 2006) and (b) gives longer to do a deal for the head lease - especially useful if CCC approval of new owners of the head lease is required (presumably CCC would need to carry out some form of due diligence). Also, if ACL 2006 were to go in to administration, that would be a couple of weeks before the next interest instalment is due, which would probably be an unsecured debt of well over £1m.Only solution for wasps that makes sense to me is to carve out the acl group in some way. Then wasps holdings repay the bond from proceeds.
does this mean who ever takes on the stadium has that debt ? or the sale of the stadium by the administrator would satisfy that firstNo because the bond holders have a fixed not just a floating charge. That is it is fixed to the stadium. But they are higher than some preferential and all ordinary creditors
I'm sure in football that football debts come first then the taxman. But a club is still in the shite if they can't pay the taxman or come to an arrangement and keep to it. So in the wrong ball shape game the taxman could well be 1st. Sure seems like Wasps haven't kept to a deal with the taxman.One last thought, and I'm happy to be corrected on this.
Even if the lease does somehow move beyond the bondholders' grasp, Wasps are still in a horrible position: Wasps Holdings and ACL are guarantors of the £35m loan, if the bondholders can't sell the lease, they're surely going to come gunning for the guarantors.
There's no way I can see of this ending well, unless there's someone very, very rich and somewhat rather daft in the shadows...
Lots to be decided before then.does this mean who ever takes on the stadium has that debt ? or the sale of the stadium by the administrator would satisfy that first
The order is set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 surely?I'm sure in football that football debts come first then the taxman. But a club is still in the shite if they can't pay the taxman or come to an arrangement and keep to it. So in the wrong ball shape game the taxman could well be 1st. Sure seems like Wasps haven't kept to a deal with the taxman.
I'm sure in football that football debts come first then the taxman. But a club is still in the shite if they can't pay the taxman or come to an arrangement and keep to it. So in the wrong ball shape game the taxman could well be 1st. Sure seems like Wasps haven't kept to a deal with the taxman.
If Wasp go bump couldn't CCC sell the stadium to a developer and leave the club homeless. That would mean paying off the remaining CCFC lease I know.
As badly as all involved have acted to this point what you are suggesting would be PR suicide, CCC wouldn't square that with the public. If Wasps pop I can only see two outcomes, CCFC find investment to get hold of the lease or a 3rd party makes a bid as a venue complex and we remain tenant.
If a big developer wanted it for a giant gigafactory or something for an offer they couldn't refuse then maybe.There's bad PR, and then there's _bad_ PR. There's no way kicking us out of the CBS when we've got a lease and we're paying the rent would fly. Even CCC aren't that daft. Probably.
If Wasp go bump couldn't CCC sell the stadium to a developer and leave the club homeless. That would mean paying off the remaining CCFC lease I know.
For teams to be promoted the RFU are going to have to get rid of the ridiculous 10k seater stadium ruleWorcester have been suspended
Wasps next please
For teams to be promoted the RFU are going to have to get rid of the ridiculous 10k seater stadium rule
We all know what's going to happen
The council will die on the wasps hill and will do everything to keep them at the stadium
Wasps RFC or whatever will rise from the mess, and take over the lease and the council will say 'its for the good of the city' and all that bollocks they spouted 8 years ago
Still asking for a 10k though in the future, surely as long as its safe a minimum capacity doesn't really matterEaling given promotion boost as RFU announces stadium criteria change
Championship club, if promoted, would have two seasons to secure planning permission and funding for a 10,001-capacity stadiumwww.telegraph.co.uk
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?