Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

jordan210

Well-Known Member
One thing that is odd is still no confirmation of admin on public records
 

SkyblueDad

Well-Known Member
A lot of what is happening and has happened re Wasps was put to me weeks ago by a so called itk. Took at the time with a pinch of salt but looks to be correct, I’m now interested in the sisu angle and looking forward to a happy xmas.
 

SHUNT31

Well-Known Member
Is it better for us if ACL go into administration as well?

My understanding is that if ACL go into admin, council revoke the lease and re-sell. Not sure if the proceeds would then go to bondholders or not.

I would like to think that could benefit us as surely the council would favour the football club…… oh wait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
I think if ACL go into admin the council will be forced to revoke the lease. If that happens, would the administrator be able to sell the lease? Not sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Going in to Admin is CCC' s biggest nightmare so will wriggle in any direction to prevent it
 

Skyblue_CP

Well-Known Member
A lot of what is happening and has happened re Wasps was put to me weeks ago by a so called itk. Took at the time with a pinch of salt but looks to be correct, I’m now interested in the sisu angle and looking forward to a happy xmas.
And what didn’t you hear about SISU’s angle..?
 

ccfc922

Well-Known Member
Bobby Bridge from the heart:

The darkest day in Wasps' history.

Well, let us digest that statement.

We were expecting Wasps to go into administration, but the most shocking line is that 'joint Administrators were required to make 167 employees redundant, including all members of the playing squads and coaching staff'.

This was the worst-case scenario for fans of the club, and for those employed by Wasps.

They are now out of work. Everything that was built by head coach Lee Blackett and his group, is now in ruins.

Young men whose dreams of playing in black and gold, crushed.

Men and women who depend on the club to pay their bills, now without an income.

The vast majority of these employees live in the real world financially. Modest incomes without great pools of reserves. This isn't football, the rewards in rugby are far, far smaller.

As the statement says, it's a dark day. The darkest in Wasps' history.

And the biggest tragedy of all. I will have to pay for a Rugby Shirt from now on

That last sentence sums up their business model anyway.
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member
"
Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) is not included in the administration of Wasps Holdings Limited which was announced today, and has filed a notice of intention to appoint administrators, a move which will give two weeks to be able to secure new owners for the venue.


A spokesperson for ACL said: “The arena is a profitable standalone business with huge potential and therefore is attracting strong interest from a number of parties. We have filed a notice of intention to appoint administrators and we will be aiming to use this period to complete a deal with a venue operator.


“It would also allow the arena to continue to generate funds through the exhibition, conference and hotel business and would also mean the Rugby League World Cup game and Coventry City fixtures will go ahead as planned, which, we believe, is in everyone’s interest.“

The arena is very much a key economic driver for the region and we are hopeful that we can conclude a deal to ensure its future. Time is exceedingly tight and talks are continuing around the clock so we can reach a suitable deal.”"



This sounds very much like the same kind of statement as Wasps put out.

We just need a bit more time..... Also fails to mention they already had an NOI so this is a second one.

Also at one point it says two more weeks to secure owners and then in another sentence it says complete a deal for with a venue operator
 

steve cooper

Well-Known Member
If you own a leasehold home, in theory once the lease expires the property standing on the leasehold ground then belongs to the leaseholder. This doesn't usually happen in practice (if the lease is extended prior to expiry).
Depending on the terms of the lease, that may apply to the arena, in which case if CCC revoke the lease upon admin, then the administrator has nothing to sell, and the arena belongs to CCC. I am assuming that is correct.
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
If you own a leasehold home, in theory once the lease expires the property standing on the leasehold ground then belongs to the leaseholder. This doesn't usually happen in practice (if the lease is extended prior to expiry).
Depending on the terms of the lease, that may apply to the arena, in which case if CCC revoke the lease upon admin, then the administrator has nothing to sell, and the arena belongs to CCC. I am assuming that is correct.

That's why they want a buyer who will take over the lease. So long as the new owner meets the criteria CCC will not have grounds to foreclose
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
If you own a leasehold home, in theory once the lease expires the property standing on the leasehold ground then belongs to the leaseholder. This doesn't usually happen in practice (if the lease is extended prior to expiry).
Depending on the terms of the lease, that may apply to the arena, in which case if CCC revoke the lease upon admin, then the administrator has nothing to sell, and the arena belongs to CCC. I am assuming that is correct.
There is supposedly a forfeiture clause in the case of insolvency in the head lease. However, CCC would have to trigger that clause once the insolvency is known (and for ACL it isn‘t known yet). The bondholders, who hold a legal mortgage over the stadium, would have the right to challenge any forfeiture in court, as indicated in the bonds prospectus. Some of the bondholders point to legal precedent as suggesting they would win such a challenge.

There is also supposedly a clause giving the council the power of veto against prospective purchasers. I would be surprised if that couldn’t also be challenged by bondholders if the application of the veto would reduce the proceeds from the sale.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Wasps and supporters have also been making a lot of noise about wanting / needing to retain the P share which the PRL have said they shouldn’t. The PRL would have to buy back the P share, the proceeds of which (?£9m - although Wasps valued it at £13m to minimise the scale of losses) would be available to repay the bondholder debt.
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
There is supposedly a forfeiture clause in the case of insolvency in the head lease. However, CCC would have to trigger that clause once the insolvency is known (and for ACL it isn‘t known yet). The bondholders, who hold a legal mortgage over the stadium, would have the right to challenge any forfeiture in court, as indicated in the bonds prospectus. Some of the bondholders point to legal precedent as suggesting they would win such a challenge.

There is also supposedly a clause giving the council the power of veto against prospective purchasers. I would be surprised if that couldn’t also be challenged by bondholders if the application of the veto would reduce the proceeds from the sale.


CCC are not likely to object to the Bondholders taking over as they have simply moved a problem

The Bondholders then have to sell a stadium in a time of high interest rates and with their potential customers being squeezed
 

Ccfcsj

Well-Known Member
Only tonight's and Saturday's games cancelled so far???????? Still down to be playing on 30th October - be an interesting game with no players
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
£5M was in 2020. When quotes figures it is usually group results

Vaughan should be asked what was the net cash flow loss from Covid.

They received payroll reliefs plus a big receipt from PRL plus I suspect others
Got curious so checked the 2019 accounts. There was 12.5m CVC cash and they revalued the P share upwards by 4.1m. otherwise they would have lost around 11m that year. So one off income of 16.6m hiding the fact that it was always a business still losing around 10m a year.
Or at 17 pound a ticket over 20 home games a they would have needed to sell an extra 29,411 tickets per game. So basically sellout crowds wouldn't have seen ACL into profit. All this before addressing outstanding loan debt.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Got curious so checked the 2019 accounts. There was 12.5m CVC cash and they revalued the P share upwards by 4.1m. otherwise they would have lost around 11m that year. So one off income of 16.6m hiding the fact that it was always a business still losing around 10m a year.
Or at 17 pound a ticket over 20 home games a they would have needed to sell an extra 29,411 tickets per game. So basically sellout crowds wouldn't have seen ACL into profit. All this before addressing outstanding loan debt.

B b b b but COVID
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top