It's that word again.
To cut a long story short, there appears to be a mechanism whereby ACL can be purchased and the charge lifted without full repayment, and that’s the route being pursued.
It seems that MA had done his homework on the clauses within the bond. It makes me wonder if he bought one in the last year on the resale market, to clarify t&C's?To cut a long story short, there appears to be a mechanism whereby ACL can be purchased and the charge lifted without full repayment, and that’s the route being pursued.
It seems that MA had done his homework on the clauses within the bond. It makes me wonder if he bought one in the last year on the resale market, to clarify t&C's?
In perspective this is one poster on that forum that is saying this.
It’s hard to believe that all of the bond investors would have missed that point.
Let’s see.
That needs reading a few times.It is a fact. The floating charge the Trustees have over the assets converts to a fixed charge in an administration event (as I guess it needs to be to calculate what they might be entitled to). From the bond prospectus:
A ‘fixed charge’ unlike a mortgage, does not transfer title, ownership or possession of the secured assets and/or interests to the Trustee (or to anyone else). Instead it allows the person giving the security to continue to own the secured assets and/or interests during the period in which the Bonds are outstanding. However, such usage is subject to certain conditions designed to maintain the value of the secured assets or interests and prevent the disposal of these assets or interests without the consent of the mortgagee (i.e. the Trustee acting on behalf of the Bondholders). On the occurrence of any enforcement event (for example, if the Issuer were to fail to make a payment of interest when due under the Bonds), the Trustee may (if directed to do so by Bondholders and subject to its being indemnified and/or secured and/or pre-funded to its satisfaction) either require the mortgagor company (i.e. the company granting the mortgage) to sell the secured assets or interests or it may take possession of the secured assets and either sell the assets or interest in it on its own or else appoint a receiver to sell the secured assets. Pursuant to the fixed charge, the Trustee, acting on behalf of the Bondholders, would have a claim over the proceeds of the sale of such secured assets in priority to any other creditors of the mortgagor company. The Trustee would, in such an event, hold all proceeds of the secured assets on trust for itself, the paying agents under the Bonds, the Account Bank and the Bondholders.
A receiver is selling the secured assets.
It’s one poster posting contents of a letter from ACL saying what is planned to happen, not one poster’s opinion of what may happen.In perspective this is one poster on that forum that is saying this.
It’s hard to believe that all of the bond investors would have missed that point.
Let’s see.
In perspective this is one poster on that forum that is saying this.
It’s hard to believe that all of the bond investors would have missed that point.
Let’s see.
tbf, the chats on 4-4-2 vs wingbacks on accountantsrus.com are something to beholdSo fucking bored of talking finance on a football forum.
So fucking bored of talking finance on a football forum.
Wonder what percentage of those who purchased bonds were people with experience of investing who would understand this type of thing and what percentage were Wasps fans who believed the rubbish about being the biggest and richest club in the world and now have a big hole in their finances.It’s hard to believe that all of the bond investors would have missed that point.
Hopefully a huge percentage of the latter.Wonder what percentage of those who purchased bonds were people with experience of investing who would understand this type of thing and what percentage were Wasps fans who believed the rubbish about being the biggest and richest club in the world and now have a big hole in their finances.
I wonder if MA purchased a whole load of bonds when the price dropped and now basically has control of them.
Think that's a key issue. Probably a lot of fans/rugby people at the beginning. Also a few sharks probably started buying up when bond price fell.Wonder what percentage of those who purchased bonds were people with experience of investing who would understand this type of thing and what percentage were Wasps fans who believed the rubbish about being the biggest and richest club in the world and now have a big hole in their finances.
Two things - (a) not all Wasps fans will have bought bonds and (b) Wasps don’t have many fans to start with.Think that's a key issue. Probably a lot of fans/rugby people at the beginning. Also a few sharks probably started buying up when bond price fell.
I know. Especially when the arguments are Wafer thin.So fucking bored of talking finance on a football forum.
Hard to imagine too many "professional" investors getting involved in a bond that's primary function was to clear debtTwo things - (a) not all Wasps fans will have bought bonds and (b) Wasps don’t have many fans to start with.
An intentional confectionery pun Tony?I know. Especially when the arguments are Wafer thin.
An intentional confectionery pun Tony?
It was a good interest rate with what they thought was good security.Hard to imagine too many "professional" investors getting involved in a bond that's primary function was to clear debt
Tony's been too Smarty for some of usAn intentional confectionery pun Tony?
I’m doing my best to switch the thread back confectionery pun’s. Basically I’m trying to turn it on a Daim.An intentional confectionery pun Tony?
Yeah I’m a Smartie pants.Tony's been too Smarty for some of us
I think you need to wispa itI’m doing my best to switch the thread back confectionery pun’s. Basically I’m trying to turn it on a Daim.
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?