Wasps 22 Discussion Threads

[ozzie_dog] 25/10/2022 10:30

@PUSB I am only trying to get my head around what is happening and why, but to answer your question DR cares about a wasp's revival and he is influencing the situation, and therefore possibly holding a potential sale up while he waits to see what happens with Wasps. I do care about the timing of the sale, and you should too.

I don't care that much about a Wasp's revival(although I would like to see it), but getting my investment back is my 100% goal. If you want to be aggressive and/or argumentative, don't bore the others with it on here, PM me.

[barondene] 25/10/2022 10:25

PUSB

There has to be a shortfall first

Bondholders only have a charge on any sale proceeds to top up funds

That is why ACL trying to avoid a Receivership which could reduce the Arena Valuation and they would call on the WASPS Receiver to sell. He would not have to sell at that time but then other guarantees kick in

[pusb] 25/10/2022 10:20

Who cares about a Wasps revival. P shares should be sold.

[barondene] 25/10/2022 10:18

They are asking for funds for marketing to maximise the value of the assets. In other words we are nowhere near the required figure to clear the Bondholders and Compass. This would mean the sale of P Shares which is the cornerstone of a WASPs revival

If they are well short - which the Trustee must be able to confirm then are any of the borrowing covenants broken?

[pusb] 25/10/2022 08:58

Wasps now asking for additional funding from bondholders to facilitate marketing of the stadium.

[ozzie_dog] 24/10/2022 11:00

My take on what's going on, please feel free to add alternative views, I am simply trying to get my head around the situation.

As I see it as long as the stadium eventually sells for enough to cover everything, bond holders will eventually be paid interest until the bond is redeemed. What might hold things up a while is DR trying to see if Wasps have any sort of a future at the stadium, because it would sell for a higher price if they had 2 regular tenants (on top of all the ad-hoc things like concerts and other sporting events).

But its hard to see Wasps not ending up in the championship, and it seems unlikely that a depleted Wasps side in the championship could generate enough revenue to able to afford playing at the stadium. But of course they have that not very convincing appeal to stay in the premiership (due to blaming Covid for what went wrong), which looks doomed to fail to me. But how long can they hang on by submitting further NOI's to keep their prospects alive (is there a limit?).

And once that appeal has run its course, the stadium will probably be sold, hopefully reasonably quickly, but I don't really have a feel for the likely timescale of this, does anyone else?

[barondene] 19/10/2022 14:42

And the parent company filed group accounts 3 months before that

These would include Arena and IE

[cc2014] 18/10/2022 09:30

A spokesman says it's a profitable standalone business, yet Companies House show the accounts are now 6 months overdue.

[ozzie_dog] 18/10/2022 08:21

Nothing new here, and most of you will already know this, but just in case (and it is also good to post something positive):





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.”

[barondene] 17/10/2022 13:56

hxxps://www.wasps.co.uk/news/bond-holders-andrew-sheridan-and-rajnesh-mittal-of-frp-were-appointed-as-administrators-of-wasps-holdings-limited-wasps-17-october-2022/

[barondene] 17/10/2022 13:34

WHL in admin no change to others

[barondene] 17/10/2022 12:58

NOIs renewed!

[mistt] 14/10/2022 09:08

Thanks Simon.

[thesimongilbert] 14/10/2022 08:48

The council was repaid in full.

[pusb] 14/10/2022 07:39

Misst- there is nothing to suggest that they weren’t.

[mistt] 13/10/2022 21:33

hxxps://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-pay-back-134m-ricoh-9201559. Do we know if cov council were actually paid in full?

[grahamg8] 13/10/2022 19:27

I'm sure US Bank are looking forward to paying thousands of bond holders.

[bondholder67] 13/10/2022 19:14

Bigfish is perfectly right. Go and have a look at the trust deed. This is the whole point of a trustee structure to have one named person on the deed. And it means that the monies recovered would indeed be paid out to the trustee who must then pay out bondholders through a waterfall principle on the pro rata of their bond holding.

[grahamg8] 13/10/2022 15:56

Interesting conclusion bigfish. Interest has been paid direct to bond holders in the past, and if the bonds had been repaid on time then that money would have come direct to bond holders. Administrators to Wasps Finance will be paying creditors of the company and that is the bond holders not the Trustee.

[bigfish1] 13/10/2022 07:43

From my lengthy discussions with the trustee I think it extremely unlikely that they will appoint their own administrator unless we can find 25% to ask in the next couple of days. Would there neccesarily be an advantage to them doing so? The security/mortgage is to the trustee, not the bondholders directly. In the event of money being distributed by the administrator it will be given to the trustee as they hold the fixed charge, not the bondholders.

[barondene] 12/10/2022 21:30

As the public evidence is the group is heading for insolvency the Trustee should be challenged as to what risk he is facing. As the notice of Administration is announced will he agree to appoint a Receiver on behalf to look after their interests who is independent of WASPs and FRP

If he argues he also wants his costs covering that us already in the terms of the prospectus

[barondene] 12/10/2022 16:58

WF Ltd is in default So you can appoint your own Receiver. You have experienced the WASPs Trustee do you really want to have a WASPs Receiver?

You want an Independent Receiver who has no distractions

[tarrier76] 12/10/2022 16:23

Bondholders need to get organised now, and stand together to ensure we don’t get screwed over. Is there already a group somewhere, with lawyers appointed?

[dandigirl] 12/10/2022 15:31

fastcat: From what I read there wasn't a choice. There wasn't a solvent company in the WASPS group that had filed up to date accounts.

Isn't it easier to work with the administrator who to my simple mind will only want to achieve the best prices for the assets without other distractions. Proceeds then distributed according to priority.

Think it will now be a long haul, though would love to be wrong on this.

Extract from the Mail:

‘However, it has become clear that there is likely to be insufficient time to find a solvent solution for the companies within the group and it is therefore likely that they will enter into administration in the coming days with a view to concluding deals shortly thereafter.’

[barondene] 12/10/2022 15:27

The Trustee should be appointing an independent Receiver to act for Bondholders

He can deal with the WH Board

But remember the bond repayment is primarily due from WF

You need your own representation more than ever