Wasps (3 Viewers)

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Why do you think Wasps have a 250 year lease?

When people post wasps that also incorporates ACL, when we say SISU we mean Otium Entertainment Group, when we say own the stadium it means owning the lease to operate, not the actual stadium. It gets confusing enough, please don't add to the confusion.
 

Intheknow

New Member
When people post wasps that also incorporates ACL, when we say SISU we mean Otium Entertainment Group, when we say own the stadium it means owning the lease to operate, not the actual stadium. It gets confusing enough, please don't add to the confusion.

Ignorance only adds to the confusion. Hence why I decided to point out that Les Reid knew nothing other than what he was fed by Sisu.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Cheers, you correctly spotted I backed up my statement with evidence, whereas Nick & Grendel just made something up to deflect attention from the facts, LOL

Er....it was you who said wasps have taken over the loan - and yet seem to be struggling to provide any a evidence they have or the reduced payment period.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
So, if the lender is CCC, they will have a charge over the 250 year lease. If Wasps default, the lease reverts to CCC - is that correct?

Doubt it. ACL will have the payments to make not wasps and if they go into administration then it goes to the administrator to find a buyer who could do a deal to reduce the loan. The Coventry taxpayer may be exposed here. I hope I'm wrong and they are not.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Ignorance only adds to the confusion. Hence why I decided to point out that Les Reid knew nothing other than what he was fed by Sisu.

I believe that as well - judging by his stance on matters. But where do you come in? We already have people who claim to be in the know ( e.g. RFC ), but you seem to have an agenda .... What is it?
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
It will show loan payments - I don't see why it would show who the lender is .

If there is a charge it will appear at Companies House against the borrower Company - I assume ACL

However I hope the Council also have a guarantee from the Parent Company - whoever / wherever they are
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Doubt it. ACL will have the payments to make not wasps and if they go into administration then it goes to the administrator to find a buyer who could do a deal to reduce the loan. The Coventry taxpayer may be exposed here. I hope I'm wrong and they are not.

If ACL own the lease, but CCC have a charge on it, then surely CCC are protected? I am sure CCC will have security if they have made the loan. The lease is an asset - and as you say, was sold cheaply meaning it has a value at least higher than what Wasps/ ACL paid for it. The naming rights are also an asset.
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by martcov
So, if the lender is CCC, they will have a charge over the 250 year lease. If Wasps default, the lease reverts to CCC - is that correct?
Doubt it. ACL will have the payments to make not wasps and if they go into administration then it goes to the administrator to find a buyer who could do a deal to reduce the loan. The Coventry taxpayer may be exposed here. I hope I'm wrong and they are not.

In the case of an insolvency there is generally a clause whereby the Freeholder can cancel the lease

If the Receiver thinks he can sell the leasehold or needs to retain the lease to continue the business of ACL he can use his powers to retain. However he has to continue to pay the rent out of ACL income while in his tenure. He cannot defer this forever as he runs the risk of the debt becoming a personal liability. Unless there is a quick sale or the income meets the rent, loan and interest repayment he will disclaim

If CCC have not taken extra guarantees they could be negligent if ACL becomes insolvent
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Er....it was you who said wasps have taken over the loan - and yet seem to be struggling to provide any a evidence they have or the reduced payment period.

The source of the rumour could be Wasps fans as they have been saying they were told at a supporters forum that the loan has been paid off by Richardson. Of course they also think they're getting all our ticket money when we play at the Ricoh so take anything from them with a pinch of salt to say the least.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
No, he's suggesting the security needs to be £20m.

Well I'm suggesting the purchase price is probably about the value of the lease, that accords roughly with the valuation stated in the JR provided there was an anchor tenant.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
No, he's suggesting the security needs to be £20m.

They are paying 20m for the lease ( taking over the loan is part of the price ). The security is in effect the lease. If ACL default, CCC get the lease - or the administrator finds someone to take it over and keep up the payments ( CCC will have to have a veto on that though ).
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Well I'm suggesting the purchase price is probably about the value of the lease, that accords roughly with the valuation stated in the JR provided there was an anchor tenant.

They are paying 20m for the lease ( taking over the loan is part of the price ). The security is in effect the lease. If ACL default, CCC get the lease - or the administrator finds someone to take it over and keep up the payments ( CCC will have to have a veto on that though ).

All good info, but as far as old fiver and CCC are concerned they only need the lease to be worth as much as the loan balance.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
That nobody seems to actually know 100% as it was all done in private. I am not saying that the full loan hasn't just been passed over, but nothing is that simple is it?

Isn't it?

Seriously. What reason do you have to think that the loan has magicaly disapeared?
 

jas365

Well-Known Member
Do we need to know? Is there any reason we should be intetested in knowing? Its not like its the golden share is it?

The golden share, aaaaah the memories. What fun we all had hunting high and low for the little fella. I wonder where it is these days?
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Or I'm watching the England egg-chasing. Again, you've tried to change the debate.

Nick keeps harping on about SISU's offer being 'the same'. It's not. Their offer was conditional on getting the YB loan at a very low value. That's clearly evidenced in the JR papers, isn't it?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Wasps took over the loan at any less than face value? Any at all?

Are you actually happy that Wasps will be playing at the Ricoh? Genuine question.

Also to those who seem to want Wasps to take us over, would you be happy if they were to relocate CCFC with them if the Ricoh 'dream' didn't work out?
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Are you actually happy that Wasps will be playing at the Ricoh? Genuine question.

Also to those who seem to want Wasps to take us over, would you be happy if they were to relocate CCFC with them if the Ricoh 'dream' didn't work out?

Do you think that 2 clubs using the same venue bring in more revenue than 1? If so, then the Ricoh dream has more chance of success with CCFC and Wasps. CCFC is going to be relocated to a smaller ground if it stays with SISU - at least that's the plan. I don't think happy is the word, but a sense of realism may describe some people's views.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Are you actually happy that Wasps will be playing at the Ricoh? Genuine question.

Also to those who seem to want Wasps to take us over, would you be happy if they were to relocate CCFC with them if the Ricoh 'dream' didn't work out?

Why would the Ricoh dream not work out for CCFC? I can see why it wouldn't work for Wasps but not CCFC.

Plus aren't SISU relocating the team because the Ricoh dream hasn't worked out for them and surely as a CCFC fan this should be your major concern and what you're questioning?
 
Last edited:

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Nobody seems to have yet come up with a reason why ACL had to be sold off to anybody yet.

Particularly for what seems such a low price.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Nobody seems to have yet come up with a reason why ACL had to be sold off to anybody yet.

Particularly for what seems such a low price.

Maybe it's not the in the councils remit to be involved in a stadium Management company and after the constant litigation it was probably in everyone's ( except poor old CCFC's ) interest to sell at a lower price in order to move on quickly
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Er....it was you who said wasps have taken over the loan - and yet seem to be struggling to provide any a evidence they have or the reduced payment period.

That is because I didn't say it like you are trying to suggest & I didn't search for evidence on those points at the time.

Simon Gilberts article here http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-strike-deal-complete-8110467 states.
The deal also included the club taking on the remainder of a £14.4million loan made in January 2013 from Coventry City Council to ACL.

as does the Telegraph Rugby correspondent here As part of the £20 million deal the council and the charity will receive £2.77  million while Wasps will also take on the company’s £14.4 million loan from the council.
As part of the £20 million deal the council and the charity will receive £2.77  million while Wasps will also take on the company’s £14.4 million loan from the council.


I said I thought I'd read something about a reduced loan period, I can't remember where or in what context, I'll look but as most of these things come with the cloak of commercial confidentiality, I think anything will be speculation, that's all I was doing, I did not present it as fact.. if I find anything that seems authoritative I'll post it up, but for now you can look at this RFC quote where he reckons the loan is 20yrs... now that is almost certainly bollocks, he knows cock all in my opinion..
And in addition have taken on a £14 million debt to be repaid over 20 years

If the Sky Blues owned the Higgs 50% would they have been liable for HALF if Wasps default on it?

I think so, so better OUT OF IT!

Onwards & Upwards, tomorrow is another day, let's move forward & on to a brighter future. PUSB!



And FFS you never provide any links to back up your statements, you are the one who should question your own unreliable and often hard to believe presentation of facts, in fact I have caught you lying before now, I well remember the time you made claims about the size of the crowd at Sixfields that were false and I published a photo taken by someone in the ground of a part of the crowd you'd claimed was much bigger.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top