Wasps 22 Discussion Threads

[bondholder67] 26/8/2022 20:48

Same as 1bolivar, I have been following the board for months but did not have much to contribute. I hold quite a substantial amount (though not as much as Ozzie) so I registered with the trustees and re-joined FB to be able to stay in touch with the group. Like everyone else, I knew the risk of the bond when I bought it at launch but it was nothing as risky as mini bonds. It was a regulated and listed bond with a stadium as a collateral. Unlike many savvy investors on this board I invested all my holding at par which means that I am probably set out to lose the most. Greed did not come into play here. This was redundancy money I invested for my children, being a single mum of 3.

[pusb] 26/8/2022 18:16

Interesting line to take, Try Simon Gilbert - thesimongilbert on Twitter. Local BBC political journalist who has covered the football and rugby clubs

[grahamg8] 26/8/2022 17:39

Let's assume Wasps miss their latest decline (edit thanks fastcat - deadline) and we get to 1 September with nothing to show? I'm of the opinion we need to start massaging the media onto our side, and the sooner the better. The Coventry Telegraph looks like a good starting point. Wean them off OMG our local rugby club is under threat. The message is strapped householders can't pay fuel bills because of greedy/incompetent capitalist rugby bosses lose their life savings.

[fastcat99] 26/8/2022 16:41

I have just now emailed both Trustee and WF (Vaughan and Eastwood) to try to ensure that any imminent Notice of Consent Solicitation is not posted EXCLUSIVELY on Euroclear/Clearstream

My reading is that Wasps are very unlikely to be at all underhand with regard to this particular process (for one thing, they actually NEED votes to meet quorums)
- but as many of us remain utterly shocked by their behaviour on and around 13 May... - once bitten, twice shy !!

[1sting] 26/8/2022 15:21

I too have registered with the Trustees and also thank all those who have been keeping us well informed

[1bolivar] 26/8/2022 10:02

Greedybondholders - a very odd post if you are saying that bond holders deserve to lose the lot. Nobody was being greedy as far as I can see. This was a market rate of interest being offered in 2015, not some unregulated too good to be true investment scheme. Nobody is asking for taxpayer bailouts or saying FCA should have stepped in. I did know the risks which I accepted on the basis of having the stadium as collateral. I'm not looking for a verbal fight, however I think you have misunderstood the overall approach of everyone on this thread.

[nelliereb] 26/8/2022 08:56

I have also registered with them and received an informative reply
I would also like to add my thanks to those on here who are doing a Stirling job keeping us informed

[greedybondholders] 26/8/2022 08:29

Don't care about the club. Hope you lose the lot. Apart from Wasps fans who have every sympathy anyone taking out this bond should have known the risks. Board encompasses everything wrong with greedy capitalism.

[grahamg8] 26/8/2022 07:34

Thanks guys. Registered holding with UsBankTrustees. Had a reply from Chris Hobbs 2 minutes ago, yet to read it.
Edit. Proof of holding and consent to share details accepted. Standard format e mail. As previously mentioned there are probably thousands of us. News articles keep mentioning £2000 which I assume was the original minimum subscription, so perhaps as many as 10,000+

[jgh03] 25/8/2022 20:58

grahamg8 - Laurence Griffiths spells his name with a "u" rather than "w", so his email address is [e-mail].

I've registered with the trustee this afternoon. Having sent my email to [e-mail] and [e-mail] I received a response from Laurence.

[fastcat99] 25/8/2022 20:54

@grahamg8 #943
you should definitely aim to correspond with Laurence Griffiths
NB correct spelling/address: [e-mail]

- he is our physical "Trustee", acting on behalf of US Bank Global Corporate Trust
- Chris Hobbs is a Vice-President of the Bank
- Laurence also put his phone numbers at the end of the email to bondholders who had already registered: Tel: [phone] Mob: [phone]

[grahamg8] 25/8/2022 20:32

Worth noting
post 901 the e mail address CDRM@usban does not exist
Better to try as post 611 [e-mail]

We also seem to have two contacts, does anyone know who we should be corresponding with on a day to day basis?
post 615 Chris Hobbs [e-mail]
post 930 Lawrence Griffiths [e-mail]

[fastcat99] 25/8/2022 17:02

I hope, Ozzie, it goes without saying that you have registered on the Trustee's list !

Obviously they won't be publishing the value of each individual's holdings, but as I understand, they WILL keep a record

- It's in everyone's interest for the threshold process (proving a particular percentage has been met) to be as quick and efficient as possible

[ozzie_dog] 25/8/2022 16:37

I have 170,000 units (almost 0.5% of the bond), I will find a way to re-join FB, I lost my account years ago and have never been able to get it back, I suppose I could open a new account using my work email address.

[1bolivar] 25/8/2022 15:31

Hi - I have been a follower of this board for several months now but have never felt the need to post. First of all thanks to the regulars for keeping the momentum up and continually holding the trustees feet to the fire.
I originally bought in at the launch but subsequently added a 5 fig amount so I am keen to see some kind of resolution. I agree with grahamg8 in that I really don't care what happens to the club as it's of no interest to me. If a super-fan wants to take my bonds from me at par for the good of the club they are welcome to them. I bought the investment on the basis that the stadium would be adequate collateral. If it's been badly managed it's of no concern of mine. I certainly wouldn't take any kind of hair-cut to help them out. Harsh but that's the market.
I have sent my details to Laurence so you can be assured of my vote if it's required. Once again thanks to everyone who has taken the time and effort to do so much research.

[cardsurfer] 25/8/2022 15:12

Now I appreciate there will be a number of holders (including myself) with a much larger holding than just £2k, but even so, the general scale of the numbers re bondholders isn't going to alter very significantly for examples I gave because of this.

[cardsurfer] 25/8/2022 15:07

Do we need a dose of reality re bondholders actually being able to work cohesively! £35MM in bonds, average holding £2k / holder, implies 17,500 bondholders. Getting just 10% means getting contact details for 1,750 people. Most people are inactive and won't see these notices - lucky if we see >500 register details/consent with Trustee (which I have done).

[cc2014] 25/8/2022 14:56

On the matter of the bondholder list. A view.

Whilst the compiling of such a list, maintaining it and adding latecomers is time and cost to the Trustee, the Trustee will much prefer to take the dircection of the (majority of the) bondholders with regard to any actions than themselves act unilaterally.

[fastcat99] 25/8/2022 14:08

I agree with all posters here and in the FB Forum,
TOP PRIORITY for all public-minded Bondholders is to contact the Trustee before 5pm tomorrow with proof of their holding and consent to be named to others,
in order for a list to be created (as described in his Notice to Bondholders this Monday).

I sought to clarify the proposed process by also mailing him this text:
"while you intend to distribute such a list asap next week (and that is why you set the August 26th 5pm deadline), you are prepared to take record of further latecomers, with a possible reedition in the future".

- and this has not received any adverse comment in his reply !! :):)

[fastcat99] 25/8/2022 13:48

RE Trustee's attitude to action on Insolvency, and further to my executive summary #929, here is some text [just slightly redacted for clarity and brevity] from the email I received this morning

"In relation to our position regarding enforcement....at the current time the Trustee does not intend to take any steps to enforce the terms of the Transaction Documents... unless directed by the requisite amount of bondholders and indemnified and/or secured and/or pre-funded to its satisfaction.

"Obviously it is difficult to speculate about how that position may change in the future given the situation is a dynamic one, but the Trustee would act in accordance with the Trust Deed and specifically the relevant instruction thresholds within it. As you note, there are circumstances in which the Trustee MAY consider unilateral action and the example which you mentioned ["if the Issuer were to declare insolvency or be placed under administration"] was given by way of illustration. For the avoidance of doubt, the example was not provided as a guaranteed course of action in that hypothetical circumstance, but as an illustration of a potential circumstance where the Trustee MAY consider such unilateral action appropriate. The Trustee will continue to act in accordance with the Trust Deed at all times..."

Griffith's careful language may provoke further cynical despair, but he really cannot express himself any other way;
@bigfish1 re your "Anything else would be truly negligent" - I/he couldn't possibly comment !!

[fastcat99] 25/8/2022 13:22

Relisting - arguments in favour

1. Relisting is to meet an OBLIGATION of the Financial Covenants; it is not a 'nice to have' OPTION. The exact manner and timing of the Delisting is (inexcusably) still obscure, but it remains one of the Issuer's most serious Breaches to date. The Trustee has stated as much in its Notices.

2. A listing can't do any harm, and will offer three sorts of benefit
- Nobody has to sell who doesn't want to, but it offers the *ONLY PROMPT WAY* OUT for Bondholders who NEED (some) Capital immediately, or those who simply despair of this
I think it utterly unfair to tie such people to the mast of a complicated and financially uncertain Enforcement process; and *re Time scales*: "I have the distinct impression that" it would take MANY MONTHS, to raise funds by Enforcing the Security.
- Even IF a Vulture Fund, or even some Party directly interested in possessing the Stadium Lease, were to sweep up a significant holding, that will simply accelerate the enforcement process which you seem to prefer
- It provides an objective, public, live commentary on the state of affairs far more widely followed than any amount of Bulletin Board posting ! :)

3. OF COURSE, the PRIOE will be hugely discounted, as WAS1 is very-distressed stock; but that does nothing to undermine the VALUE (which continues to lie EXCLUSIVELY in the Security and the payment of Interest Coupons).
This is such an elementary point, but I still feel many readers here don't quite get it.

4. Finally don't forget that ORB Bonds are traded 'dirty': ie sale proceeds MUST include Interest (pro rata to that day) in addition to the actual bid price, no matter how measly that may be.