Wasps 22 Discussion Threads

[bondholder] 18/11/2022 08:55

The p shares carry the right to income from tv rights etc and as they can be bought back at a reduced price this seems likely(I would hope!)

[bondholder] 18/11/2022 08:45

I believe the figures are 15.8 gross 13.5 net.The security documents seem to me to suggest that we have a charge over the sale proceeds of the P shares. But no right to force the sale of the shares. I think we are reliant on the Rugby body electing to repurchase them.

[mills8] 18/11/2022 08:44

Were the P shares not also security for the bond? If so, are we not now in a position to force the sale of the P shares?

[bondholder] 18/11/2022 08:42

Gerald Eve must have been aware that the bond was a retail issue aimed at small investors.

[bondholder] 18/11/2022 08:40

I'm not disagreeing with you. The fact is that the judge agreed 17m is market value which then begs the question was it reasonable to put 52m in the 2021 report. People undoubtedly relied on that figure in deciding to invest because Wasps have never made a profit.

[mills8] 18/11/2022 07:59

So where are we now?

It looks like £13.5m is going to be allocated to us, or are there any deductions from that? Or is that the net amount?

Do we have any claim on the P shares or do we have no priority over other creditors (I suspect the latter), not forgetting that HMRC are owed something like £6m, and if we do not have any priority, they will be first in the queue. Or even worse is there no way to force the sale of the P shares? I would have thought a winding up order on the part of wasps that own the P shares would achieve what we need. I suspect that HMRC are likely to do that.

Do we know the total value owed to Wasps creditors?

[mills8] 18/11/2022 07:39

@bondholder, the critical situation regarding the sale of the stadium was all down to wasps because they must have known that the money was running out for the stadium to continue to stage events. Yet they allowed the time to run out to the point where it became an emergency, with a bidder having to inject cash at short notice. They should have identified how long they could continue to keep the stadium running, and organised the stadium sale within that timeframe (and also allow for float for unforeseen events). Whether that was by design to manipulate the sale so that MA was aware and could pick up the stadium cheaply (because he was fully informed of how critical the cashflow situation was) or whether it was simply pure incompetence by wasps we will never know.

Also it looks as if it may not have been communicated to all interested parties that their bid would be rejected if it did not include a 'non returnable' amount for keeping the stadium open. But wasps should have never allowed things to become so critical, they should have organised the sale process to have been completed a couple of months ago. Parties like the administrators and trustee should have made sure that all interested parties were aware of the importance of a cash injection to keep the stadium open. It was ridiculously incompetent to allow the timeframe to get so bad that the money literally ran out on the day of the court case.

[2paulw] 17/11/2022 23:26

Has anyone considered trying to bring a class action against the Trustee for negligence following the default event of non payment of interest & return of principal in May. They should have acted in best interest of bondholders at that time and enforced the guarantee with the Guarantors. (B16,B18 & C8 of prospectus). Leigh Day Solicitors maybe a possibility.

[bondholder] 17/11/2022 18:40

Judge described Frasers' offer as "market value". That's a quote from Simon Gilbert who was in court today. I agree with your points. However even the current situation does not justify a 65+ percent shortfall from the 2021 figure imo.If sale prices can be 65 percent less what on earth is the point of engaging a FRICS valuer?I'm wondering if a contingency fee legal firm would regard this case as commercial

[mills8] 17/11/2022 18:16

I know where you are coming from (and you still have a point despite what I am about to say), but unfortunately we were not in an open market situation today. I think the truth is we were slightly mislead on the valuation, but more importantly Wasps totally financially mismanaged so many things (look at how many offers were reasonable, but yet the situation was so bad that those offers could not be accepted), I really can't be bothered to list them all, Wasps financial and management skills are almost non existent.

[bondholder] 17/11/2022 18:07

The external FRICS valuation of the stadium in May 2021 was 52 million.The judge today placed the market value at 17 million.At what level of variation could a surveyors valuation be found negligent ?

[mills8] 17/11/2022 17:00

I have read in various place that the bondholders will receive 13.5m, but most of them say that equates to 30p in the £! One did say 'about 30p in the £. How? Surely it is 38.5p in the £, or is there a further deduction from that £13.5m?

[pusb] 17/11/2022 16:50

Barondene -totally agree.

[barondene] 17/11/2022 14:10

PUSB

In <1 month

£1.5m Ashley + £250k CCFC + other rents

Operating cost allegedly £300k pm

When they were saying interest would be paid in line with loan details they knew they did not have it

[mills8] 17/11/2022 13:45

Disappointing news, but now that Ashley has bought the arena, and we lose out, we need to try and get the P shares money. But what is the process? Could a winding up order be issued to the wasps company that owns them? Which wasps company does own them?

EDIT: I realised after posting because the stadium is sold we probably will not have a valid claim on the the P shares any more? Or is that not correct, and maybe we still have sort of a claim?

[mistt] 17/11/2022 13:37

Deal done.

[pusb] 17/11/2022 13:30

Barondene - the interest was never there. Where was it going to come from?

[bondholder] 17/11/2022 13:27

Property to be sold to MA

[barondene] 17/11/2022 13:03

So where has £2m gone in less that 1 month?

[pusb] 17/11/2022 12:56

That’s gone, will be included in whatever the payout is.

[barondene] 17/11/2022 12:34

What about the unpaid interest?

[mistt] 17/11/2022 12:01

Ashley offer would see bondholders get about 30p in the pound. Roughly £13.5m in total.

[nicktheglobe] 17/11/2022 11:31

Emotion is very strong in sports issues and here the fans (and the area) are very much with CCFC effectively winning control. As a bondholder I'd rather throw my hand in with Doug King and his 25m than Mike Ashley with his 15.8m.

[barondene] 17/11/2022 11:26

MISST

Have they actually said it goes to Ashley

The rumours are Richardson still will be involved - that could make a difference

[mistt] 17/11/2022 11:23

@boldholder, it's from simon gilbert, reporting from the hearing. Wondering if the bondholder reps figure that a bird in the hand is worth more than 2 being extended by SISU and friends, and I wouldn't blame them.

Easy to predict this one. Arena goes to Ashley, and SISU and friends submit an application for a judicial review (they are very fond of doing this).