Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (12 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
As I understand it, it's controlled by the FCA and you need stuff like a draft bond prospectus that meets with their approval.

Given the current bond is supposed to have redeemed in May, and all of the confusion around administration, I can't see the FCA relisting it.

That's because I also can't see how the current prospectus can be seen to apply and that the bonds themselves are now technically in default.

In short, I can't see it happening.

The only way I see the bondholders getting paid is a new investor clearing the debt, possibly by offering a haircut, or the bondholders forcing the sale of the lease and any other assets held by Wasps/ACL.

Thinking it through further, the problem with offering a haircut is that they'd have to get a certain proportion to agree, and I don't think that's going to be easy in the amount of time Wasps have left; especially now that the administration clock is ticking.

Unless there's genuinely someone out there with a lot of money to throw at Wasps, £40-50m, then I can't see any way they avoid administration. Just my personal opinion though, obviously.


Remember the Trustee acts for the Bondholders. I don't know if he has to take a vote to make his decision on a redemption price or he can apply his discretion
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Remember the Trustee acts for the Bondholders. I don't know if he has to take a vote to make his decision on a redemption price or he can apply his discretion

It's an absolutely fair point.

I'm thinking that whilst he might be able to sit on his hands during the admin process and say, "I don't know what you want me to do", he'll find that a lot more perilous if he says unilaterally "we'll take 50%" when by all accounts the lease and assets should cover the whole amount.

At some point he might find himself in court with that approach, I'd venture, because that's clearly not acting in the bondholders best interests.
 

hutch1972

Well-Known Member
Still a ridiculously high rate. During the time the bond has been in issue there have been times when it was a struggle to get 1%
Obviously it reflected the risk, as all investments do.
There are bond risks where you are covered up to 85k, and there are retail bond risks where you can be left penniless. Sorry to say the Wasps bonds are the latter.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
at least 3 conditions - probably more

Proof of Solvency
All regulatory matters are up to date (eg Accounts )
A current audited financial statement

And the regulations require a bond prospectus, that really long document that outlines the business structures, breaks down the accounts, the valuations, and the risks.

The current one is clearly out of date, given all of the changes that have happened and the fact the bond redemption date has already passed. I don't think the bonds will be relisted anytime soon.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member



"The BBC has discovered that Coventry City Council, as freeholder of the stadium, has the right to force Wasps to forfeit the lease "if the tenant enters into some kind of insolvency regime"."


Pretty sure MusicDating pointed this out days ago....



giphy.gif
 

Samo

Well-Known Member



"The BBC has discovered that Coventry City Council, as freeholder of the stadium, has the right to force Wasps to forfeit the lease "if the tenant enters into some kind of insolvency regime"."


Pretty sure MusicDating pointed this out days ago....


A chance for CCC to correct a huge wrongdoing. Will they take it? I very much doubt it?
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Hasn't that been said for years?

However, that says the Council "has the right" which means they clearly aren't going to do it.

Exactly. Very unlikely. They might do if there’s no other alternative or if they felt that the correct solution wasn’t being progressed/executed (again extremely unlikely)

They are likely to work with an administrator to agree transfer/sale of long lease
 

Gynnsthetonic

Well-Known Member
Exactly. Very unlikely. They might do if there’s no other alternative or if they felt that the correct solution wasn’t being progressed/executed (again extremely unlikely)

They are likely to work with an administrator to agree transfer/sale of long lease
Sale or transfer back to Richardson who will then let newly formed but not relegated Wasp 2022 RFC play there
 

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
If he makes the best offer and rugby authorities agree, yes, maybe
Are the council duty bound to get the best price and sell to whoever wants it though? If it goes into Admin, wouldn't they have a responsibility to get as much as they can for the creditors? Haven't we complained that SISU weren't offered the chance to buy the lease? After all the fruckuss, both then and now, could they make councillors vote for selling it virtually straight back to Wasps? Doesn't sound best value to me, stinks of skullduggery.
 

Theonlywayisskyblue

Well-Known Member
Are the council duty bound to get the best price and sell to whoever wants it though? If it goes into Admin, wouldn't they have a responsibility to get as much as they can for the creditors? Haven't we complained that SISU weren't offered the chance to buy the lease? After all the fruckuss, both then and now, could they make councillors vote for selling it virtually straight back to Wasps? Doesn't sound best value to me.
They didn't follow due process last time - why would it be any different this time ? Selling it back to WaspsV2 on the basis that things will be different this time based on a fantasy business model is surely the only way for them to cover their backs. Otherwise they have to admit they got it wrong last time ? Don't want to be unduly cynical but when they're up to your elbows in it.......
 

JonesBob

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top