D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
That's it. At a time where plodding along leaving your money in a bank would struggle to have got any return, it seems the high risk gamble would fail, but not as spectacularly as it could have done...
That's it. At a time where plodding along leaving your money in a bank would struggle to have got any return, it seems the high risk gamble would fail, but not as spectacularly as it could have done...Well they have already got 52% of it back across all the interest payments I suppose
That's it. At a time where plodding along leaving your money in a bank would struggle to have got any return, it seems the high risk gamble would fail, but not as spectacularly as it could have done...
The interest rate said anything but low risk.Wasn't it suppose to be low risk. As no retail bond has gone tits up before.
Are they pissing money away? If Ashely has paid a £1.2m exclusivity fee why the need to threaten the football club the ground would be locked up if they didn't put more money in?The trustee today confirmed that the offer for the property is £15.8m + £1.2m non- refundable exclusivity fee.
Has the NEC ever actually been confirmed as bidding? There was some rumoured interest but for all we know that could have been as little as a phone call and being told the Ashley bid was already well down the line.Rumours were NEC, the only other bidder, was outbid, so less you’d expect?
I think they started it. Must have been a nominal lowbal offer and when Ashley gazumped them, they didn’t fancy itHas the NEC ever actually been confirmed as bidding? There was some rumoured interest but for all we know that could have been as little as a phone call and being told the Ashley bid was already well down the line.
It seems to have morphed in some peoples minds to a bidding war between Ashley and the NEC until the NEC have up and walked away.
What is stopping another party publicly coming out and offering a better deal to bondholders? Would this have an effect on the court decision on Thursday?
The NEC group were the first to show interest - and it was solid interest to the point that CCC wanted to do a deal. Then Ashley came along...Has the NEC ever actually been confirmed as bidding? There was some rumoured interest but for all we know that could have been as little as a phone call and being told the Ashley bid was already well down the line.
It seems to have morphed in some peoples minds to a bidding war between Ashley and the NEC until the NEC have up and walked away.
What is Byng trying to say?
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
The interest rate said anything but low risk.
Any bond which has no cover, is always high risk. The type of bond they had was subject to an FCA investigation only a short time back.Wasn't it suppose to be low risk. As no retail bond has gone tits up before.
Probably is for ReevesSo you think Reeves wanting to throw £30m of tax payer money at them is the better option?
He's shown more interest in them than us so far.You think/know that Ashley wants Wasps?
That's it. At a time where plodding along leaving your money in a bank would struggle to have got any return, it seems the high risk gamble would fail, but not as spectacularly as it could have done...
Not really
The prospectus clearly laid out security of the lease and Eastwood in an interview confirmed also the P Share as security
With an independent valuation at £51 million the risk is not huge
This seems to actually remove the security so other creditors also get a share which is deviating from the offer. Can't think who might be getting a payout he wouldn't if someone else purchased it
"As long as though they are getting their interest paid, which they are, and they have proper security for the bond which is in the context of this place and also the P shares, as they call it, they've got more than enough cover.
Not really
The prospectus clearly laid out security of the lease and Eastwood in an interview confirmed also the P Share as security
With an independent valuation at £51 million the risk is not huge
This seems to actually remove the security so other creditors also get a share which is deviating from the offer. Can't think who might be getting a payout he wouldn't if someone else purchased it
Not really
The prospectus clearly laid out security of the lease and Eastwood in an interview confirmed also the P Share as security
With an independent valuation at £51 million the risk is not huge
This seems to actually remove the security so other creditors also get a share which is deviating from the offer. Can't think who might be getting a payout he wouldn't if someone else purchased it
I know you might point to an independent valuation but you'd surely need to have a look at the basis of it? Why did it conclude the arena to be valued at £51m? What assumptions was the valuation based on?
I've always had concerns about the valuation, it never seemed right to me but others insisted it was.I know you might point to an independent valuation but you'd surely need to have a look at the basis of it? Why did it conclude the arena to be valued at £51m? What assumptions was the valuation based on?
Isn't that fraud if they are getting non realistic valuations to raise finance?
I've always had concerns about the valuation, it never seemed right to me but others insisted it was.
I'm with Grendel here, if the bond total is £35m and you've been told there's security of £51m which has been independently verified you could reasonably expect to get your £35m back if it all goes tits up.
They're now looking at an offer from Ashely that's 30% of the amount previously stated in the valuation. And they won't be getting all of that.
I recall reading one of the valuations and there was a lot of this is based on information provided by Wasps that hasn't been verified type statements. The whole thing seems dodgy to say the least but you would assume the lawyers looked over everything to ensure they stayed on just the right side of the line.
The Americans for instance ?Also, now that the amount is public I wonder if any of the other bids or offers would be made public?
Will they say who is going to be involved with it or wait until it's gone through?
Again - if SISU stay silent… the betterAlso, now that the amount is public I wonder if any of the other bids or offers would be made public?
Will they say who is going to be involved with it or wait until it's gone through?
1.2m sounds like 1m plus VAT to the administrator to me to try to get the stadium on the cheap.Are they pissing money away? If Ashely has paid a £1.2m exclusivity fee why the need to threaten the football club the ground would be locked up if they didn't put more money in?
Again - if SISU stay silent… the better
Again - if SISU stay silent… the better
The Americans for instance ?
Be interested to see if this goes tits up and ACL get liquidated…. Wonder how SISU will back out of that oneGuessing it will be until it's confirmed one way or the other.
If / when it's all sold and sealed to Ashley and Co then there's no chance of liquidation so more will come out.
Be interested to see if this goes tits up and ACL get liquidated…. Wonder how SISU will back out of that one
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?