HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Is that you Shugs? We’re a championship football club, we’re acting like a Sunday league team
Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter Alkhen
- Start date
- Status
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Lets cut to the chase here. Is Robins going to get cut off at the knees in January again? Because the only reason any of us care about this shit is as a route to get him the funding he needs.
I was comparing £16m to a valuation of £50m and the BH debt of £35m
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Fucking hell I only came on to the thread to have another laugh at the Martin Reeves gif and there have been 247 posts since
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Well it’s not worth that. But ultimately it’s worth what people will pay. And if you won’t pay more than someone else you won’t pay what it’s worth.
Unless we’re now claiming Duggins is mind controlling Mike Ashley in which case he could be doing much better stuff with it like finding someone other than Jim O’Boyle to head up regeneration.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
And yet I'm a teacher and you work in IT
mark82
Super Moderator
I don't think he does.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I could do it in photoshop! Just not easily on a phone.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It’s fine, beats “works in computers” that I get from most relatives.
Ben Sheaf! Ben Sheaf!
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Bondholders have 270 quid to go. I think all they need to do is to put this early settlement to bed and wait around a little for it all to unravel for everyone else, and it will make their position much stronger in the long run in getting all their money back.
skyblueeyesrevisited
Well-Known Member
Switch off and back on again merchant
jordan210
Well-Known Member
Dint Reeves say the council had 4 pillars for a potential owner.
Us playing at the CBS
Wasps playing at the CBS
Regeneration of the arena
some other thing.
Sisu would not pass theses if they dint want wasps paying at the CBS. Ultimately no one would pass unless they are willing to pump money in to wasps or subsides the insets playing at the cbs
Us playing at the CBS
Wasps playing at the CBS
Regeneration of the arena
some other thing.
Sisu would not pass theses if they dint want wasps paying at the CBS. Ultimately no one would pass unless they are willing to pump money in to wasps or subsides the insets playing at the cbs
duffer
Well-Known Member
Whether he thinks Duggins is simple or not doesn't come into it. He can't just imply to Wasps that he can get £30m of match-funding without some sort of concept that it's feasible. This obviously wasn't done on a whim.
There's obviously been something going on with the Council leaders, remember the planned meeting with the Labour members that was mysteriously cancelled?
Well, even if it was 45p in the pound back to the bondholders, and it almost certainly isn't, I wouldn't think it was fair if I'd been led to understand that I'd got full security on a lease that had been valued at far beyond the investment value.
I also wouldn't think it was good value if I had the impression that the administrator and/or the trustee weren't acting in my best interests as a secured creditor.
If you really had money in this, NW, then I suspect you wouldn't be quite as phlegmatic about it either.
Don't get me wrong, I've no emotional attachment to the investors, but I can see why a lot of them feel as though they've been stitched up.
I can see there's been almost £15,000 pledged towards having their say in court, by almost 100 investors. Bondholders are only being asked to commit a very small percentage of their nominal holdings towards the fees, which makes me think that between them they're holding a lot of bonds. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in court... If nothing else I suspect the Trustee might be getting a bit uncomfortable.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Nobody is going to give them £35 million
I'd have expected more like add £10M on top of that but it is Ashley
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Admin can drag on for years, which would put the P-shares and the Arena well in their reach.
Also, no good for anyone who wants to resurrect a rugby club, which they can't do when admin drags on.
So many reasons why you wouldn't want a quick sale if you are a bondholder, and so many good reasons for everyone else in this pre-pack to have a quick sale.
Some balls of steel are needed here.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I've already been throwing tomato soup at a picture of Duggins, but the missus told me that I was being silly and I should just grow up and finish my dinner.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
what's the actual process here. if the bondholders object is that it, they can't do the quick sale to Ashley. Trustee can hardly get up and say it's all fine from the bondholders side if they've engaged their own representative to say it isn't.
if it doesn't go through is it straight into administration?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I would think wow that’s brillaint we may have a chance of uniting the ground and the club
jordan210
Well-Known Member
I guess they want it so it's an open market sale not a closed one.
Odd that ACL wanted money from the bond holders to market the sale yet was clearly already being sorted with Ashley
Calista
Well-Known Member
Need to tread carefully D, you’re beginning to make it sound like you’ve got a few grand’s worth of those bonds yourselfIf you really had money in this, NW, then I suspect you wouldn't be quite as phlegmatic about it either.
Don't get me wrong, I've no emotional attachment to the investors, but I can see why a lot of them feel as though they've been stitched up.
I can see there's been almost £15,000 pledged towards having their say in court, by almost 100 investors. Bondholders are only being asked to commit a very small percentage of their nominal holdings towards the fees, which makes me think that between them they're holding a lot of bonds. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in court... If nothing else I suspect the Trustee might be getting a bit uncomfortable.
duffer
Well-Known Member
As every Councillor has made clear *after* the outcry started...
Before that it was all in secret, like the original bail out of the arena where the story was squashed by the council when Les Reid found out about it, and like the secret deal to sell to Wasps.
Sooner or later mate, you're going to have to see a pattern in their behaviour here in regard to how they operate.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
I don't really know, I would reckon this could be the first of many offers to try a twist the bondholders arm. I do think the bondholders hold all the cards. Furthermore, I don't believe any of the group who went into this pre-pack actually want to go down the liquidation option, so it's hold out for 45% + 45% now, or whatever is, or it is time to call someone's bluff and hold on for a year for that lovely p-share money and whatever else, and grease the pole for everyone in the pre-pack to slither up and down on like they have tried to do with the bondholders.
Last edited:
duffer
Well-Known Member
Need to tread carefully D, you’re beginning to make it sound like you’ve got a few grand’s worth of those bonds yourself
No mate, that would be like supporting Wasps. I'd never feel clean again.
It's just I can see why they feel cheated and I've got an intense dislike of lying liars like CCC and Wasps getting away with it.
I've only ever had a share (via the family) in CCFC, and SISU got that bugger off us for nowt too!
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
And screw over bondholders/creditors/local businesses in the process.
Move over Linekar, we're the new Leicester.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
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 while 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 be 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 ?
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 while 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 be 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 ?
Last edited:
- Status