Search results

It says it is another chapter in the city’s regeneration - it says nothing about future owners having a responsibility for further regeneration. It says nothing about southern rugby clubs either,

Very true. Wasps have shown there are enough issues trying to run the arena at a profit without the distraction and added complexity of being property developers.

Not odd, they had an offer that they could have tested by marketing if they had the funds. Bondholders didn’t cough up, so the offer became the best available and the bondholders are now squealing about it have been sold undervalue.

The people who were ACL administrators in waiting.

This says the stadium was built for Coventry City Football Club.

No doubt already covered in the discussions between preferred bidder and CCC, wouldn’t happen if bidder meets CCCs criterion of being anyone but SISU.

My understanding is that the period of exclusivity runs up to Thursday, so I guess not.

Ive cleaned my specs and I wiIl give you that there is one “may not“ and one “may” - but not lots of mays. The council may choose not to forfeit the lease, but if they do then the bondholders would have to challenge the forfeiture, if the bondholders lost that challenge, the mays in red would...

I can’t see any mays at all.

Taken direct from the prospectus Risks relating the head lease of the Arena granted to ACL2006 Under the terms of the head lease granted by Coventry City Council (“CCC”) to Arena Coventry (2006) Limited (“ACL2006”) in respect of the Arena (the “Head Lease”), CCC have reserved the right to...

Didn’t think Ashley was part of the wasps legends purchase.

P share isn’t with ACL.

The offer to bondholders is at 45p in the pound. If not accepted, as I said before, administrators will put ACL in to liquidation so Arena would probably be closed, That will trigger forfeiture of the lease back to the Council. Presumable more money for bondholders from sale of Wasps Holdings...

Enough to pay off half the bonds would be a significant sum. Part of the problem the bondholders have in accepting a reduced pay back is that they believed the valuations in the accounts, which at the very least didn’t take any dilapidations costs in to account. I don’t think that they grasp...

Wasps Holding were the rugby operation so they hold the P share. My understanding is that sales of P shares are “under the control” of the PRL. In this situation, PRL are expected to demand that the P shares ( and those of Worcester Warriors) are sold back to PRL - so you are right, PRL need to...

The court hearing relates purely to ACL from what I have read.

I don’t think that is correct, it is to remove the charges / security against the assets to be purchased by the preferred bidder. That doesn’t include the proceeds from P shares.

The administrators have made it clear that the offer is insufficient to pay them back in full. There are, of course, other sources of funds - the proceeds from sale of P shares back to PRL and the proceeds of sale of Wasps Holdings.

It’s a very small percentage of bondholders.

During my time as Chief Executive of a publicly funded organisation, I would have discussed the “envelope” within which I could operate in any discussions of such a nature with the chairman. I find it hard to believe that such an experienced CE would not have done so especially given the...