Wasps 22 Discussion Threads

[mills8] 17/11/2022 11:05

It must be good news that CCFC are opposing the sale, because the only reason that I can see why they would do that is that they want the £25m bidder Doug King to get the stadium.

EDIT: In fact I have just read that Doug King has just bought CCFC from SISU:

hxxps://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/coventry-city-ashley-cbs-arena-25536482

[barondene] 17/11/2022 10:59

I dont know how it works - I assume they should check with the CCFC clerk

[bondholder] 17/11/2022 10:57

Hearing started 1030!

[bondholder] 17/11/2022 10:55

Do you have a source for this ?

[barondene] 17/11/2022 10:55

A BH should ask to be joined in with them

[bondholder] 17/11/2022 10:45

Just heard that CCFC are at Court opposing the sale

[barondene] 17/11/2022 10:08

I understand the BH Association are saying they will not attend

This does not stop an individual attending or being represented - or so I am told

[the vampire] 17/11/2022 07:59

25 million bid for the stadium by Doug King.

[barondene] 16/11/2022 20:55

A question has been raised about ACL. It seems they have received 1.5m from Ashley for an exclusivity option. Add at least £250k from CCFC in past few weeks and other rents. They have not paid interest despite assurances it would be on due date. Where has the income gone and was it valid

[barondene] 16/11/2022 20:44

Bondholder- short answer is No

There is well repeated rumour that Richardson is to get 30% of stadium if deal goes through. It is however just a rumour

[bondholder] 16/11/2022 20:15

Equity bid for stadium. Ashley to swap stadium for share of CCFC?

[pusb] 16/11/2022 19:13

Important update

hxxps://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/2022/november/news-local-businessman-to-acquire-majority-stake-in-coventry-city-football-club/

[barondene] 16/11/2022 16:49

I have not seen any hearing papers just the bits on here

The meeting is also presumably to put the Company in to Admin - with or without the restrictions being lifted

If they are not lifted I assume the threat is Liquidation - but your legal team can advise if that is good or bad

The big elephant in all this is whether DAR is involved going forward!!

[pusb] 16/11/2022 14:02

Barondene - the point of the application to the court is to allow the arena to be sold unencumbered by the security charge/ mortgage against it - with or without the bondholders approval.

[mills8] 16/11/2022 13:00

I can see now why the £20m offer was made public, they may have made it very difficult for wasps and/or the receivers (for the part of wasps that is in administration) to justify selling the stadium without the bondholders approving a sub £35m offer.

[barondene] 16/11/2022 11:15

While the Security is in place the Arena cannot be sold without the Bondholder approval
This would seem to mean the Trustees approval

As the Trustee is acting in a fiduciary position he should establish if the offer is the best one available for the Bondholders. I am not sure how he does that without all the information before him

Then it gets complicated and is best answered by your legal advisor

One question I would raise is - do the directors, shareholders, guarantors and connected parties benefit in any way by removing the securities. As there would appear to be a shortfall in the present proposal is there any conflict?

I should add I am not professionally qualified so the above is simply opinion

[mills8] 16/11/2022 10:03

Thanks barondene, I lost track of where things were. I wonder where that places bondholders then, is there anything that can be done about that Mike Ashley offer? Something underhand is clearly going on, if they are accepting what seemed to be (and subsequently proved to be) a lower offer.

If the court decides that the stadium cannot be sold 'as if' there was no security, does that then mean that it cannot be sold for less than £35m (or just over £36m if the additional interest is considered which was promised by Wasps and possibly contractually owed anyway) without the bondholders agreement? If that is the case (I do not know if it is) would that then re-open the bidding negotiations?

[barondene] 16/11/2022 10:02

Fastcat

Is it possible you can post this document?

High Court hearing: application to appoint Administrators for the two Arena Companies; full details in the Trustee Notice on Thursday

[barondene] 16/11/2022 09:56

Mills8

The Company is not in Administration and there are no Administrators
They are the purposes of the meeting tomorrow

The decisions are being made by the ACL Directors - one of whom , DAR was reappointed in August. Just in time to veto the Hottinger deal

[andyzulu] 16/11/2022 01:10

Wouldn’t it make sense to approach the bidder featured in the radio interview to work with bond holders. Surely he would happily fund our legal representation as it is in his interest for us to take control of the asset.

[pusb] 15/11/2022 19:51

Mills8 - some pressure needs to be applied to PRL to buy back the P shares, the only way to realise an asset worth over £9m.

[mills8] 15/11/2022 17:53

Ashley has only offered £15.8m (the bond holders will not receive the £1.2m part of his bid), so this other offer is over 26.5% higher based on £20m, and it was reported as 'over £20m', so even higher. Hopefully the barrister is aware of this.

I suppose the problem is though that the administrators have already accepted Mike Ashley's offer, it makes you wonder what on earth is going on when they accept an offer that seemed to be low, and subsequently proved to be so by this other offer. I wonder what other offers might have been forthcoming?

[django68] 15/11/2022 17:24

Based on that radio interview, I would hope that the lawyers representing us on the 17th will use this reported higher bid from John Dawkins as ammunition for our case. That said the '20MM+' on offer that he mentions is not that significantly higher

[1bondinvestor] 15/11/2022 17:00

Reply to kb68. The person coordinating bondholders' response is Valerie Barrett,
email: valerie:[e-mail]