Search results

Not updated despite the press release.

Almost sounds as if the right of forfeiture means absolutely nothing, well done ccc

£4.80. I remember it being 10p!

The group representing 10% of bondholders who had asked the Trustee to organise an EGM have asked the Trustee to put that process on hold since the Notice of Intent to appoint an administrator. Given it was going to take 5 weeks plus to actually hold the meeting, I think they will have lost any...

I think they were getting their shit together, but have now dropped it down the pan.

Looks like the bondholders are getting pissed off with the Trustees and their lack of action despite an EGM having being requested by a group representing over 10% of the bonds value over 2 weeks ago. One has written a complaint to the FCA asking for the situation to be investigated as that...

Not all of them.

Only one Prem home game, 6878. 8th highest out of 13.

I think it’s very likely that the bondholders who are organising themselves will have 25% of the votes cast. which is the magic figure.

It’s paid every 6 months, so they will be expected to pay £1,137,500 in the next few weeks, I would imagine it won’t be paid if they go in to admin.

I’m not sure, but I think they would be in even deeper shit, and a lot earlier, if they hadn’t promised it and don’t keep that promise.

I think next interest is due late October/ early November. Or as Shuggs would put it, in a few weeks.

You would put a covenant in prohibiting demolition of the bowl.

Wasps already have that.

They would just change the rules (not laws as far as I know). Earlier kick offs might reduce the number of pissed up/ coked up twats and make the match day experience more family friendly.

wouldn’t that be similar to buying CCFC and just the arena (ACL).

Sounds like to buy Wasps clearing debt to HMRC, bondholders and Richardson (£18m) would cost £65m plus.

£12m?

Having been banned from Onceawasp, it was amusing to see the following “SBSam was also correct that the recent signs were more significant than we hoped they were.” Some of them are finally smelling the coffeee.

The prospectus does say that court action may/ would be required given the terms of the head lease. I would imagine that is why the council is spending tax payers money to seek legal advice. On the bondholders forum someone suggest not to worry about it as courts are generally sympathetic to...