chiefdave
Well-Known Member
someone on that bonds site says they need 75% agreement but is that 75% of all bondholders, which seems a tough task, or 75% of those who bother to respond, which seems easier to achieve.
Wasps downward spiral... (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter CCFC54321
- Start date
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Aaah Shugs - what a man. Still dying on that hill.
From a quick read back, it is 75% of the nominal value of the bonds which is not necessarily the same as 75% of the number of individual bondholders.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I think it's the value of bonds held
If Richardson owns 26% of them they're laughing.
Philosorapter
Well-Known Member
If sufficient bondholders sell, then there won't be enough money from the loan, or that's how I imagine it to be. Would you have confidence in buying a bond which has struggled to refinance?
Do you keep the bond waiting for it to one day mature sometime in the future, or cut your losses and run?
It's very murky water all round.
25% needed to get a resolution raised
75% to get a resolution passed
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They won’t be getting a £35 million grant
Perhaps £13 million grant to address dilapidations and put a new conservatory on would raise the value of the arena to act as surety for a loan of £35 million.
If they get £13m unencumbrred it puts the extra amount needed to pay bondholders in reach
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The bonds are in effect an interest only mortgage for an indefinite period
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Maybe but a lender will still look at affordability from the point of view of the borrower surely?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
People selling the bonds for nothing doesn't have any material impact on Wasps
If the bonds are relisted, some holders may get out at them at less than face value, in the same way that some bought them at less than face value when they were being traded (as low as 40%). The bonds would still have a total face value of £35 million, losses in the first instance would be felt by the bondholders who would then be able to seek recom0ense from the sureties and guarantors. That would hit Wasps.
The question of whether to wait for a future maturity is already being discussed on their chat forum with very mixed views being expressed.
Y
You would have thought so. I can’t see how a company needing to go cap in hand for grants, losing money and with apparently declining attendances would be an attractive proposition. But who knows.
You would have thought so. I can’t see how a company needing to go cap in hand for grants, losing money and with apparently declining attendances would be an attractive proposition. But who knows.
shepardo01
Well-Known Member
They were an interest only mortgage for 7 years, now need bondholders agreement to extend.
They are in default.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
That clown can stuff off.
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
So Wasps have borrowed £35m of other people's money and promised to pay it back in May 2022, but they've spent all the money and can't pay it back, is it me or is this theft and fraud on a massive scale.
Does not alter the debt if bonds sold for1p still £35m owed
There is misconception that the default automatically puts the stadium in bondholders hands
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Even if it did what are they going to do with it.
Those bastards most likely knew 2-3 years ago the whole thing was collapsing around them but continued to piss money away in training grounds etc they couldn’t afford but we all knew what was being said behind the scenes was “don’t worry ccc will help us out.”
Fucking disgusting how they treated the bond holders but what do you expect with a franchise they couldn’t give a toss about their now tiny fan base.
Not proud to say this but SISU have played a blinder here…. Sweat the bastards out and pick it up on the cheap.
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
Who or what company is paying the 6.5% interest anyway and how are they still paying it, surely the next step will be to postpone the payments.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
how would that work?
It wouldn't- if it goes cheaply there would be a queue of bidders
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Check the “tickets” thread out…. Really starting to take potshots at us 
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
Mainly Shugs, 'where have all these Cov fans come from'. Ffs we've been here for 140 years, who do these people think they are, they nest in another City with an existing football and Rugby team. Just fuck off the back down south!Check the “tickets” thread out…. Really starting to take potshots at us
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Shugs is concerned, this is the first time he’s started taking shots at us directly… normally it’s “SISU bad - why don’t you be angry at them” etc
he deffo thought the bond would be paid today. Definitely an ex-city fan, who’s switched to wasps… isn’t Jan is it?
Nick
Administrator
What's their beef?Check the “tickets” thread out…. Really starting to take potshots at us
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
“Where have all these Coventry fans come from?”
“Few promotions and they’ve lost their principles”
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
Forgive me, but why is it a misconception? Surely if Wasps formally default then the security can be enacted. Say for example SISU bought all the bonds at 50p in the £ (total outlay £17.5m) then Wasps were unable to refinance, leaving the long-lease at the Arena as the security. Surely SISU would be able to either retain the security or alternatively sell to another of their companies to recoup the £35m but having only had outlay of half? If there’s something I’m missing let me know (aside from the fact they almost certainly won’t/wouldn’t do that).
I would need to reread the prospectus but I don't think the bondholders as a class have a way to directly do what you suggest. There is convoluted route to follow.
