Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (73 Viewers)

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

djr8369 said:
If a successful local football team played there wouldn’t the regeneration kind of happen naturally rather than say building a hotel that isn’t needed on a car park that is needed?

You keep acting as if people are too dumb to understand the idea of the council wanting some regeneration but it’s really not that difficult a concept. The dumb idea is that the council would still fall for anyone wooing then with some ‘PowerPoint and photoshop’.

It’s quite plain that anyone who wants the arena wants it for their own ends and isn’t going to regenerate north Cov and it’s quite plain the council don’t want to work with SISU (understandable) but ultimately virtually every issue falls away if the ground and team are united and there aren’t all these other interested parties and investors arguing over it.

Explain. What material difference would “uniting the club and stadium” make?

It’s just sentiment. It wouldn’t give us a bigger budget, and there’s no evidence we have the commercial chops to run it effectively.

And again. Sisu haven’t even bid! You’re asking an asset holder (both administrator and the freeholder) to ignore actual bids and what exactly? Give it to Sisu? Force it on them? Sorry HMRC and other creditors I know I’ve got a legal duty to get as much as possible but I thought it would be really nice if the club owned it. This is not a serious thought for anyone aged over 12.

CCFCSteve · Nov 15, 2022

oldskyblue58 said:
The bondholders challenge has a number of problems when it goes to court Thursday

The bondholders are not acting as one body though which is a problem. It doesn't even look like it is the majority of bondholders at the moment opposing.

They do not have a lot of funding to challenge the administration. 15k is not going to buy much legal time i was once told that sort of sum gets you to the court steps. Could they pay upfront for an alternative administration?

The trustee has already said they will not challenge the proposal, there must an informed reason for making that decision. A judge will weigh that against bondholders who are upset because they won't get all of their money back. Of course the administrators have to comply with the law as do the trustees

Say the decision goes against MA, or actually the administrators would be more accurate, then everything fails and the bondholders could end up with even less or even nothing.

A judge will need to be persuaded that other options are better than what is presented to him. The administrators who are agents of the court must show that this is the best deal available the bondholders without the benefit of the data have to show it is not. So long as the administrators have acted legally I am not sure how they could found to be at fault

Clearly the preferred bidder is funding the administration from the information released. The bondholders will need to show they can fund an alternative.

Other potential buyers including sisu have indicated they want a more aggressive administration with a new lease. Bondholders would have no security on any new lease. A more aggressive administration would almost certainly provide bondholders less of a return.

If the application fails then it will be liquidation and that will bring all sorts of time issues together with the biggest problem..... keeping the stadium open. No value as not a going concern

From the rumours going round, which no doubt some bondholders are aware of, other potential buyers are waiting in the wings to pay less or even do way with the asset secured.

Other than a seat it court and perhaps a chance to speak I am not sure the bondholders complaining will get much more.

That's my take on it from what I know. Not an insolvency practitioner so there may well be other considerations that changes things. The administrators have worked on this for 2 or 3 months at least surely they will have considered the possibility of objections?

The other thing to bear in mind is this is about ACLs liabilities not the wasps group ones. what other liabilities does ACL have ? Certainly compass and Delaware.

One final thought could there be a cap on the ACL guarantee limited to the amount actually borrowed from wasps finance, not sure if that could be done but that would change things wouldn't it ?

Agree with this.

As mentioned on other posts:

Have the bondholders got funding to support ACL in administration whilst a higher offer is found ? I doubt it. If not, I think it will be closed/mothballed unless a new buyer is already waiting in the wings

Is there already a party willing to offer more than preferred bidder (Ashley) ? If so, why didnt they disclose this earlier and will they 100% deliver/complete deal ? This may also require repayment of any non refundable deposit paid by preferred bidder

If someone wants the stadium under a new lease the likely scenario is CCC forfeit current one. If this is the case I’d imagine there is no value for bondholders as isnt their security is over the long lease ?!

Huge risks for bondholders unless they know something we don’t.

skyblueeyesrevisited · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
It doesnt mention the 2-0 win over QPR either

Deflection

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

skyblueeyesrevisited said:
Deflection

No it’s not. It’s pointing out how silly it is to complain a plaque saying why the arena was built doesn’t mention Wasps FFS

djr8369 · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Explain. What material difference would “uniting the club and stadium” make?

It’s just sentiment. It wouldn’t give us a bigger budget, and there’s no evidence we have the commercial chops to run it effectively.

And again. Sisu haven’t even bid! You’re asking an asset holder (both administrator and the freeholder) to ignore actual bids and what exactly? Give it to Sisu? Force it on them? Sorry HMRC and other creditors I know I’ve got a legal duty to get as much as possible but I thought it would be really nice if the club owned it. This is not a serious thought for anyone aged over 12.

It’s not just sentiment. It would secure the club and mean no more arguments about rent, moving grounds in disputes etc. Until then there is always the threat of homelessness.

I’m not asking them to ignore bids. I’m pointing out that your argument that regeneration is the councils main concern is not very strong and if the council keep pursuing it it will just lead to more future issues. Obviously the highest bid should be accepted but you’ve been suggesting SISU keep missing out because they aren’t committing to regeneration.

Nick · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Explain. What material difference would “uniting the club and stadium” make?

It’s just sentiment. It wouldn’t give us a bigger budget, and there’s no evidence we have the commercial chops to run it effectively.

And again. Sisu haven’t even bid! You’re asking an asset holder (both administrator and the freeholder) to ignore actual bids and what exactly? Give it to Sisu? Force it on them? Sorry HMRC and other creditors I know I’ve got a legal duty to get as much as possible but I thought it would be really nice if the club owned it. This is not a serious thought for anyone aged over 12.

How do you know who has bid and who hasn't?
How do you know who has bid what?

Uniting the club and the stadium would make it a more sellable prospect.

Philosoraptor · Nov 15, 2022

From what Giblets has just reported, it looks like Baldemort is hanging on by a thread at the Council. The mushrooms in the Labour group were going to put forward a vote of no confidence in the Baldemort, but cancelled on the request of Duggins.

No wonder, shmmeee is currently on spin central at the moment.

.

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

Gynnsthetonic said:
It shouldn't be down to the football club though, I don't know any other club in the country where the local council want the club to carry out regeneration, its not their responsibility.

It’s not. It’s down to whoever owns the arena.

This again is all a distraction from the fact that the club has made no attempt to buy the arena and has repeatedly said it doesn’t want it.

But people are asking why the council seems to support some bids over others and that’s the reason.

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
No it’s not. It’s pointing out how silly it is to complain a plaque saying why the arena was built doesn’t mention Wasps FFS

Tying yourself up in knots when you could just concede it looks bad for the Council when its leader was considering chucking in £30 million to bail out an insolvent rugby club.

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

Nick said:
How do you know who has bid and who hasn't?
How do you know who has bid what?

Uniting the club and the stadium would make it a more sellable prospect.

Ah yes, the old “why do you trust what literally everyone from the club itself to the administrators to Simon Gilbert and SaddlesBrains’ inside sources say and not this hypothetical situation I’ve invented because it makes me feel good?”

I really don’t know mate.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 15, 2022

Philosorapter said:
From what Giblets has just reported, it looks like Baldemort is hanging on by a thread at the Council. The mushrooms in the Labour group were going to put forward a vote of no confidence in the Baldemort, but cancelled on the request of Duggins.

No wonder, shmmeee is currently on spin central at the moment.

View attachment 27245.

Point of order, but nobody bar Mild Mannered Janitor would miss Reeves if he went.

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Tying yourself up in knots when you could just concede it looks bad for the Council when its leader was considering chucking in £30 million to bail out an insolvent rugby club.

Except he wasn’t.

Nick · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
It’s not. It’s down to whoever owns the arena.

This again is all a distraction from the fact that the club has made no attempt to buy the arena and has repeatedly said it doesn’t want it.

But people are asking why the council seems to support some bids over others and that’s the reason.

But you said the council have no say and are nothing to do with it?

Now it is that whoever gets it needs to develop the area.

Again, how do you know who has and hasn't bid?

Nick · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Except he wasn’t.

He was, it's fact.

Why are you literally denying things that have happened?

The Philosopher · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Explain. What material difference would “uniting the club and stadium” make?

It’s just sentiment. It wouldn’t give us a bigger budget, and there’s no evidence we have the commercial chops to run it effectively.

And again. Sisu haven’t even bid! You’re asking an asset holder (both administrator and the freeholder) to ignore actual bids and what exactly? Give it to Sisu? Force it on them? Sorry HMRC and other creditors I know I’ve got a legal duty to get as much as possible but I thought it would be really nice if the club owned it. This is not a serious thought for anyone aged over 12.

Not a trick question:

Would reuniting the club and stadium income enable any potential owner (eg MA) to be more flexible under FFP rules?

Nick · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Ah yes, the old “why do you trust what literally everyone from the club itself to the administrators to Simon Gilbert and SaddlesBrains’ inside sources say and not this hypothetical situation I’ve invented because it makes me feel good?”

I really don’t know mate.

Like I said, how do you know who has and hasn't bid and what they bid?
How do you know Ashley bid the highest to all of the creditors?

Nick · Nov 15, 2022

Philosorapter said:
From what Giblets has just reported, it looks like Baldemort is hanging on by a thread at the Council. The mushrooms in the Labour group were going to put forward a vote of no confidence in the Baldemort, but cancelled on the request of Duggins.

No wonder, shmmeee is currently on spin central at the moment.

View attachment 27245.

Where was that?

Duggins really told them not to?

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Except he wasn’t.

But he was?

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

djr8369 said:
It’s not just sentiment. It would secure the club and mean no more arguments about rent, moving grounds in disputes etc. Until then there is always the threat of homelessness.

I’m not asking them to ignore bids. I’m pointing out that your argument that regeneration is the councils main concern is not very strong and if the council keep pursuing it it will just lead to more future issues. Obviously the highest bid should be accepted but you’ve been suggesting SISU keep missing out because they aren’t committing to regeneration.

No I’ve suggested that Sisu aren’t even at the table by their own choice. There’s no bid to reject. As a side point I’m saying as I’ve said for a decade that Sisu royally fucked up their relationship with a key stakeholder because they were badly advised by a bunch of political loons and have never dealt with a local authority before.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 15, 2022

CCFCSteve said:
Agree with this.

As mentioned on other posts:

Have the bondholders got funding to support ACL in administration whilst a higher offer is found ? I doubt it. If not, I think it will be closed/mothballed unless a new buyer is already waiting in the wings

Is there already a party willing to offer more than preferred bidder (Ashley) ? If so, why didnt they disclose this earlier and will they 100% deliver/complete deal ? This may also require repayment of any non refundable deposit paid by preferred bidder

If someone wants the stadium under a new lease the likely scenario is CCC forfeit current one. If this is the case I’d imagine there is no value for bondholders as isnt their security is over the long lease ?!

Huge risks for bondholders unless they know something we don’t.

Costs will increase exponentially if this drags on, won't they. So, to simplify for the purposes of my fat fingers, the £15mil bid might need to be £20mil just to match the current return offered for bondholders if this carries on.

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

Brighton Sky Blue said:
But he was?

What’s your allegation here? That Reeves is lying about the stage the proposal got to? And about being told no bailout by the councillors?

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

Nick said:
Like I said, how do you know who has and hasn't bid and what they bid?
How do you know Ashley bid the highest to all of the creditors?

Because his bid was accepted and if it wasn’t the best then the administrators have failed in their legal duty and should be taken to court.

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

The Philosopher said:
Not a trick question:

Would reuniting the club and stadium income enable any potential owner (eg MA) to be more flexible under FFP rules?

I don’t know enough about FFP rules TBH to know what’s counted and what’s not.

Nick · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
Because his bid was accepted and if it wasn’t the best then the administrators have failed in their legal duty and should be taken to court.

Was it the Administrator who chose the preferred bid?

Nick · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
What’s your allegation here? That Reeves is lying about the stage the proposal got to? And about being told no bailout by the councillors?

What are you trying to rewrite now?

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

Nick said:
What are you trying to rewrite now?

Listen to the interview. 2:10 “the political administration of the council were very very clear there was to be no bailout, no funding directly into Wasps”

mark82 · Nov 15, 2022

Deleted member 5849 said:
Point of order, but nobody bar Mild Mannered Janitor would miss Reeves if he went.

Not sure what I'm missing here, but why would MMJ miss Reeves?

skyblueeyesrevisited · Nov 15, 2022

shmmeee said:
No I’ve suggested that Sisu aren’t even at the table by their own choice. There’s no bid to reject. As a side point I’m saying as I’ve said for a decade that Sisu royally fucked up their relationship with a key stakeholder because they were badly advised by a bunch of political loons and have never dealt with a local authority before.

Well they won’t be dealing with a local authority again will they.

Philosoraptor · Nov 15, 2022

One more time because this is golden.

shmmeee · Nov 15, 2022

Nick said:
Was it the Administrator who chose the preferred bid?

According to the press release from ACL yes:

“The Companies and the proposed administrators from FRP Advisory have run an accelerated sales process to sell the business and assets of the Companies and have identified a preferred bidder.”

ccfcrob · Nov 15, 2022

Anyway, What do we think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich City Centre?

mark82 · Nov 15, 2022

ccfcrob said:
Anyway, What do we think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich City Centre?

Makes it easier to buy boxes of Celebrations with no Bounty's.

The Philosopher · Nov 15, 2022

Nick said:
Like I said, how do you know who has and hasn't bid and what they bid?
How do you know Ashley bid the highest to all of the creditors?

It appears that the £1m paid for exclusivity is the key.

No firm legally binding bid was clearly made, an indicative offer and the ability to fund “£X million” MA could clearly show, perhaps why he got PB status.

ccfcrob · Nov 15, 2022

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
Can we start a GoFundMe for @shmmeee to have a few beers in Lloyds?

He can stick it on expenses surely?

Jcap · Nov 15, 2022

skyblueeyesrevisited said:
Deflection

Nah mate that was against Wigan

Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (73 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency