Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (9 Viewers)

edgy · Nov 9, 2022

Anyway, on topic:

Phil Vickery: London return for former club Wasps 'would be awesome'

Former Wasps prop Phil Vickery is part of a consortium of former players trying to buy the club after it went into administration; he is also part of the RFU campaign Play Together, Stay Together aimed at addressing the issue of falling numbers in the community game

www.skysports.com

Vickery is part of a consortium of former Wasps players trying to buy the men's team and the academy. That deal is yet to be ratified by the RFU but if it does get the green light Vickery believes Wasps need to return to their roots.

"To see Wasps come back to London would be awesome," Vickery told Sky Sports News.

"I associate Wasps with London, but it's easier said than done. They've tried for years to get the opportunity to do that.

"Yes, it would be brilliant - but let's focus on getting the club up and running."

shmmeee · Nov 9, 2022

Sky Blue Pete said:
Talking to Mike Ashley and not sisu / ccfc

Weird. Boddy says he was talking to CCC loads…

Maybe he didn’t get the lines to take memo.

wingy · Nov 9, 2022

rhino1002 said:
Can anyone tell me who the administrator is because I didn't think that they are yet in administration and an administrator had not yet been appointed

They will have

skybluetony176 said:
It’s irrelevant. ACL and CCC are two separate legal entities. The administrator is the one making the decisions at ACL now and they have a legal requirement to get the best deal for ACL’s creditors, they vet any approaches for ACL not the council.

No doubt expecting s grant for delapidations along with all that

Sky Blue Pete · Nov 9, 2022

shmmeee said:
Weird. Boddy says he was talking to CCC loads…

Maybe he didn’t get the lines to take memo.

Not strange all are playing a Comms game and ccc were great in helping to get games on

shmmeee · Nov 9, 2022

Joy and Byng talking to Gilbert in their upcoming interview

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 9, 2022

edgy said:
Anyway, on topic:

Phil Vickery: London return for former club Wasps 'would be awesome'

Former Wasps prop Phil Vickery is part of a consortium of former players trying to buy the club after it went into administration; he is also part of the RFU campaign Play Together, Stay Together aimed at addressing the issue of falling numbers in the community game

www.skysports.com

Vickery is part of a consortium of former Wasps players trying to buy the men's team and the academy. That deal is yet to be ratified by the RFU but if it does get the green light Vickery believes Wasps need to return to their roots.

"To see Wasps come back to London would be awesome," Vickery told Sky Sports News.

"I associate Wasps with London, but it's easier said than done. They've tried for years to get the opportunity to do that.

"Yes, it would be brilliant - but let's focus on getting the club up and running."

Always liked Phil Vickery

oldskyblue58 · Nov 9, 2022

Having used pretty much the same play book when they "bought" CCFC out of administration you would think they understood the process going on. The frustrating thing is that they do not seem to have tested the administrators resolve until the last couple of days when it was too late because of exclusivity period (a common process in deals)

The whole process didnt start in the last couple of weeks it has been going on much longer than that. Wasps filed their NOI 21/09/2022 that was the trigger date not when ACL filed NOI because of the ownership and charges links

Whilst CCC have it seems approved a lease for the stadium with MA, did SISU even express a serious interest to the administrators sufficient to mean the administrators had a choice to make or compelled to put both bids forward. Pretty certain the only other serious interest that led anywhere was NEC. Of course, CCC are closely involved as freeholder they have to be. It is FRP that have advised who the preferred bidder would be though....... that was decided a while back i suspect.

The plan if Byng is to be believed, not sure i give him much credence to be honest, was to wait till no one buys ACL or doesn't do a prepack arrangement then to swoop in to buy a new lease and associated fixed assets at a knock down price from an administration that CCFC as a very minor unsecured creditor had no control of. Could they have outbid MA even in that situation?

They wanted a new lease, isnt the logic of such a thing that the existing and related leases all fail and have no worth. Not only shutting, at least for a time, the stadium but every other business operating there - including the casino? I assume everyone would need to acquire new leases at increased rent

The delapidations, well yes there are those costs but what is involved. Is it the bricks and mortar of the stadium or is it bringing major equipment like fire & safety, lifts etc up to current standard? It wont need to be done day 1 and the net cost of £13m could be nearer to £10m after corporation tax relief at the new rate is taken in to account.

Of course in a prepack situation you choose the assets that will be valuable to you then leave the "baggage" behind. So where is the baggage problem?

It is quite likely that the stadium would have to be closed to get the delapidation costs done in one go, so it could be sold on without that burden. Only CCC would be in a position to do that and the chances of lease reverting CCC to the detriment of the bondholders without significant legal challenge is remote - meaning very likely the stadium being shut longer because ownership would need to be settled so work could be done. How many home games left this season?

Far from no one wanting the current lease, or taking on the delapidations, it seems someone does. If the administrators receive more money from the prepack than an aggressive administration process that basically removes the existing lease for little or no value how is that worse for ACL creditors?

It is also not the case that NDA's are unusual, SISU have used them regularly. I am sure they are well aware of exclusivity periods. No point complaining its unfair, thems the rules of the game they know well.

Whilst they were attending meetings with council, ACL etc to keep the stadium open was that not a good time to express a serious interest in acquiring the stadium or to set up proper meetings to discuss with FRP or CCC?

The administration on 17th could well be the date that ownership changes and what is left in ACL gets ditched, not the start of a process that allows anyone else to bid further. What's the betting the MA exclusivity period runs to midnight on the 17th

just looks like more smoke and mirrors to me from CCFC owners, and "we tried but everyone else we can think of stopped us achieving purchase of the stadium". Not for the first time SISU have got their timings and plan wrong it looks like

Of course the MA deal could still fall flat on its face but that is looking increasingly less likely.

Also logically it isnt just the lease that MA would be buying. To have business as usual he would have to buy the Fixtures, Fittings, Equipment, stocks, the sub leases or licences, any goodwill etc (less delapidations of course), it is the creditors & liabilities he wont be buying in to.

BackRoomRummermill · Nov 9, 2022

fernandopartridge · Nov 9, 2022

oldskyblue58 said:
Having used pretty much the same play book when they "bought" CCFC out of administration you would think they understood the process going on. The frustrating thing is that they do not seem to have tested the administrators resolve until the last couple of days when it was too late because of exclusivity period (a common process in deals)

The whole process didnt start in the last couple of weeks it has been going on much longer than that. Wasps filed their NOI 21/09/2022 that was the trigger date not when ACL filed NOI because of the ownership and charges links

Whilst CCC have it seems approved a lease for the stadium with MA, did SISU even express a serious interest to the administrators sufficient to mean the administrators had a choice to make or compelled to put both bids forward. Pretty certain the only other serious interest that led anywhere was NEC. Of course, CCC are closely involved as freeholder they have to be. It is FRP that have advised who the preferred bidder would be though....... that was decided a while back i suspect.

The plan if Byng is to be believed, not sure i give him much credence to be honest, was to wait till no one buys ACL or doesn't do a prepack arrangement then to swoop in to buy a new lease and associated fixed assets at a knock down price from an administration that CCFC as a very minor unsecured creditor had no control of. Could they have outbid MA even in that situation?

They wanted a new lease, isnt the logic of such as thing that the existing and related leases all fail and have no worth. Not only shutting, at least for a time, the stadium but every other business operating there - including the casino? I assume everyone would need to acquire new leases at increased rent

The delapidations, well yes there are those costs but what is involved. Is it the bricks and mortar of the stadium or is it bringing major equipment like fire & safety, lifts etc up to current standard? It wont need to be done day 1 and the net cost of £13m could be nearer to £10m after corporation tax relief at the new rate is taken in to account.

Of course in a prepack situation you choose the assets that will be valuable to you then leave the "baggage" behind. So where is the baggage problem?

It is quite likely that the stadium would have to be closed to get the delapidation costs done in one go, so it could be sold on without that burden. Only CCC would be in a position to do that and the chances of lease reverting CCC to the detriment of the bondholders without significant legal challenge is remote - meaning very likely the stadium being shut longer because ownership would need to be settled so work could be done. How many home games left this season?

Far from no one wanting the current lease, or taking on the delapidations, it seems someone does. If the administrators receive more money from the prepack than an aggressive administration process that basically removes the existing lease for little or no value how is that worse for ACL creditors?

It is also not the case that NDA's are unusual, SISU have used them regularly. I am sure they are well aware of exclusivity periods. No point complaining its unfair, thems the rules of the game they know well.

Whilst they were attending meetings with council, ACL etc to keep the stadium open was that not a good time to express a serious interest in acquiring the stadium or to set up proper meetings to discuss with FRP or CCC?

The administration on 17th could well be the date that ownership changes and what is left in ACL gets ditched, not the start of a process that allows anyone else to bid further. What's the betting the MA exclusivity period runs to midnight on the 17th

just looks like more smoke and mirrors to me from CCFC owners, and "we tried but everyone else we can think of stopped us achieving purchase of the stadium". Not for the first time SISU have got their timings and plan wrong it looks like

Of course the MA deal could still fall flat on its face but that is looking increasingly less likely.

I suspect the extent of the dilapidations is being deliberately overstated regardless tbh osb

The Philosopher · Nov 9, 2022

CCFC_Irish said:
It has been reported that Ashley wants to build an additional car park and hotel near the CBS. My guess is, this isn't going to happen without the council being involved.

If the hotel plans include a helipad then we know MA has long term intentions (satire)

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 9, 2022

fernandopartridge said:
I suspect the extent of the dilapidations is being deliberately overstated regardless tbh osb

It'll be upgrade to as-new cost won't it, rather than whatever it costs to keep it safe and acceptable.

Colin Steins Smile · Nov 9, 2022

None of us know the details of the pre-pack agreement, if it is realised by MA. However, if MA has offered £35m for selective assets within ACL, which i presume is the arena, but would it include the Premiership share?? I'm doubting it would, as think that asset sat within Wasps.
My reasoning for asking that is: If the stadium cost £35m, but MA also bought the Rugby premiership share, which is supposedly worth £9m.....then he's actually paid £26m for the arena. That would be consistent with the figure that Pride Park sold for of £22m....and PP didn't have the exhibition hall, etc.
That doesn't look a bad deal IF TRUE.
I'd welcome others insight on this.

oldskyblue58 · Nov 9, 2022

fernandopartridge said:
I suspect the extent of the dilapidations is being deliberately overstated regardless tbh osb

very likely fp

The Philosopher · Nov 9, 2022

oldskyblue58 said:
Having used pretty much the same play book when they "bought" CCFC out of administration you would think they understood the process going on. The frustrating thing is that they do not seem to have tested the administrators resolve until the last couple of days when it was too late because of exclusivity period (a common process in deals)

The whole process didnt start in the last couple of weeks it has been going on much longer than that. Wasps filed their NOI 21/09/2022 that was the trigger date not when ACL filed NOI because of the ownership and charges links

Whilst CCC have it seems approved a lease for the stadium with MA, did SISU even express a serious interest to the administrators sufficient to mean the administrators had a choice to make or compelled to put both bids forward. Pretty certain the only other serious interest that led anywhere was NEC. Of course, CCC are closely involved as freeholder they have to be. It is FRP that have advised who the preferred bidder would be though....... that was decided a while back i suspect.

The plan if Byng is to be believed, not sure i give him much credence to be honest, was to wait till no one buys ACL or doesn't do a prepack arrangement then to swoop in to buy a new lease and associated fixed assets at a knock down price from an administration that CCFC as a very minor unsecured creditor had no control of. Could they have outbid MA even in that situation?

They wanted a new lease, isnt the logic of such a thing that the existing and related leases all fail and have no worth. Not only shutting, at least for a time, the stadium but every other business operating there - including the casino? I assume everyone would need to acquire new leases at increased rent

The delapidations, well yes there are those costs but what is involved. Is it the bricks and mortar of the stadium or is it bringing major equipment like fire & safety, lifts etc up to current standard? It wont need to be done day 1 and the net cost of £13m could be nearer to £10m after corporation tax relief at the new rate is taken in to account.

Of course in a prepack situation you choose the assets that will be valuable to you then leave the "baggage" behind. So where is the baggage problem?

It is quite likely that the stadium would have to be closed to get the delapidation costs done in one go, so it could be sold on without that burden. Only CCC would be in a position to do that and the chances of lease reverting CCC to the detriment of the bondholders without significant legal challenge is remote - meaning very likely the stadium being shut longer because ownership would need to be settled so work could be done. How many home games left this season?

Far from no one wanting the current lease, or taking on the delapidations, it seems someone does. If the administrators receive more money from the prepack than an aggressive administration process that basically removes the existing lease for little or no value how is that worse for ACL creditors?

It is also not the case that NDA's are unusual, SISU have used them regularly. I am sure they are well aware of exclusivity periods. No point complaining its unfair, thems the rules of the game they know well.

Whilst they were attending meetings with council, ACL etc to keep the stadium open was that not a good time to express a serious interest in acquiring the stadium or to set up proper meetings to discuss with FRP or CCC?

The administration on 17th could well be the date that ownership changes and what is left in ACL gets ditched, not the start of a process that allows anyone else to bid further. What's the betting the MA exclusivity period runs to midnight on the 17th

just looks like more smoke and mirrors to me from CCFC owners, and "we tried but everyone else we can think of stopped us achieving purchase of the stadium". Not for the first time SISU have got their timings and plan wrong it looks like

Of course the MA deal could still fall flat on its face but that is looking increasingly less likely.

I’ve been trying to work out if we’ve all missed another angle - and I’ve no inside knowledge - I’m just thinking out loud.

MA clearly got an inside lane on the other bidders.

Could it be that he has refinanced or has agreed with the Trustess to refinance the bonds and then became the largest secured creditor?

This would I believe enable him to in some way control the administration to a better degree.

He wouldn’t necessarily have to pay 100% of the £35m up front if the Bondholders wanted to “keep their money in” for a decent return.

As I say, just looking at a different angle.

oldskyblue58 · Nov 9, 2022

Colin Steins Smile said:
None of us know the details of the pre-pack agreement, if it is realised by MA. However, if MA has offered £35m for selective assets within ACL, which i presume is the arena, but would it include the Premiership share?? I'm doubting it would, as think that asset sat within Wasps.
My reasoning for asking that is: If the stadium cost £35m, but MA also bought the Rugby premiership share, which is supposedly worth £9m.....then he's actually paid £26m for the arena. That would be consistent with the figure that Pride Park sold for of £22m....and PP didn't have the exhibition hall, etc.
That doesn't look a bad deal IF TRUE.
I'd welcome others insight on this.

ACL have no right to the P share so wont be part of the ACL deal/prepack

The Philosopher · Nov 9, 2022

oldskyblue58 said:
ACL have no right to the P share so wont be part of the ACL deal/prepack

But the Trustees do or at least believe they do - hence my previous posting on the point.

chiefdave · Nov 9, 2022

The Philosopher said:
MA clearly got an inside lane on the other bidders.

Byng posted this on twitter, "Mr. Ashley, or his team, were probably approached by Wasps. From my records, I note that I was approached for information by someone purporting to act for Mr. Ashley on 2nd August 2022, before the final date for refinancing the Bond."

If there's any truth in that then it does seem that, at a minimum, its been Ashely preferred all along, if not pretty much a done deal before anyone else had a chance to get involved.

Seems odd though. Surely if you were trying to sell the stadium the first call you would make would be the owners of the football club.

Colin Steins Smile · Nov 9, 2022

oldskyblue58 said:
ACL have no right to the P share so wont be part of the ACL deal/prepack
[/QUOTE
Thanks

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 9, 2022

chiefdave said:
Byng posted this on twitter, "Mr. Ashley, or his team, were probably approached by Wasps. From my records, I note that I was approached for information by someone purporting to act for Mr. Ashley on 2nd August 2022, before the final date for refinancing the Bond."

If there's any truth in that then it does seem that, at a minimum, its been Ashely preferred all along, if not pretty much a done deal before anyone else had a chance to get involved.

Seems odd though. Surely if you were trying to sell the stadium the first call you would make would be the owners of the football club.

Yeah, my question is why would *anybody* approach Michael Byng wrt this?!?

fernandopartridge · Nov 9, 2022

Colin Steins Smile said:
None of us know the details of the pre-pack agreement, if it is realised by MA. However, if MA has offered £35m for selective assets within ACL, which i presume is the arena, but would it include the Premiership share?? I'm doubting it would, as think that asset sat within Wasps.
My reasoning for asking that is: If the stadium cost £35m, but MA also bought the Rugby premiership share, which is supposedly worth £9m.....then he's actually paid £26m for the arena. That would be consistent with the figure that Pride Park sold for of £22m....and PP didn't have the exhibition hall, etc.
That doesn't look a bad deal IF TRUE.
I'd welcome others insight on this.

ACL does not own the Premiership share so probably not

slowpoke · Nov 9, 2022

Good &interesting article OSB thanks for that it sort of educates a thicko like me. It reads to me the court case is a week today the 17th so could it be on the 18th the arena is Mike Ashleys, who decides that a judge ? so what could veto that ? I assume Ashley’s agreed price is so much in the pound so what if someone else offered for example 10p in the pound more and when would that have to be offered.

fernandopartridge · Nov 9, 2022

The Philosopher said:
But the Trustees do or at least believe they do - hence my previous posting on the point.

It's irrelevant to ACL regardless - the Trustees have a charge over the assets of WH and entitled to proceeds from the sale of those assets, that sale might come from the deal with the ex Wasps legends.

Philosoraptor · Nov 9, 2022

Byng does have a point here.

Are CCC acting with Coventry resident's best interests in not letting the ACL 2006 lease revert back to the council?

They have the option to do this, and choose not to.

Would be interesting to see the cost and benefits of this, which CCC must have worked out beforehand.

wingy · Nov 9, 2022

chiefdave said:
Byng posted this on twitter, "Mr. Ashley, or his team, were probably approached by Wasps. From my records, I note that I was approached for information by someone purporting to act for Mr. Ashley on 2nd August 2022, before the final date for refinancing the Bond."

If there's any truth in that then it does seem that, at a minimum, its been Ashely preferred all along, if not pretty much a done deal before anyone else had a chance to get involved.

Seems odd though. Surely if you were trying to sell the stadium the first call you would make would be the owners of the football club.

Around a week ago it was purported that there was some toing and froing between Ashley and NEC with one upping their bid at which point the other was considered out.

The Philosopher · Nov 9, 2022

fernandopartridge said:
It's irrelevant to ACL regardless - the Trustees have a charge over the assets of WH and entitled to proceeds from the sale of those assets, that sale might come from the deal with the ex Wasps legends.

Yes, but if MA assumes the position and rights of the Trustees then does he have the charge? Are there other secured creditors entitled to the P Share?

duffer · Nov 9, 2022

Saddlebrains said:
Those saying they cant understand why the council will be involved I've said numerous times

ACL is basically the council under a different guise. The puppetmaster of ACL is Reeves, Duggins etc. Hence the involvement

But ACL is not owned by the Council. They are the freeholder, they don't own the business. So again, how do they influence what's going on with the administration process?

It looks like they are from what Boddy is saying, but how?

Colin Steins Smile · Nov 9, 2022

Philosorapter said:
Byng does have a point here.

Are CCC acting with Coventry resident's best interests in not letting the ACL 2006 lease revert back to the council?

They have the option to do this, and choose not to.

Would be interesting to see the cost and benefits of this, which CCC must have worked out beforehand.

My guess is that in the discussions between MA & CCC would focus on the investment into the area around the stadium to create new businesses and jobs. That's the benefit to CCC with greater revenues generated for the area

jordan210 · Nov 9, 2022

Not sure why. But I have a feeling there is still a big twist in this.

fernandopartridge · Nov 9, 2022

duffer said:
But ACL is not owned by the Council. They are the freeholder, they don't own the business. So again, how do they influence what's going on with the administration process?

It looks like they are from what Boddy is saying, but how?

Because they as freeholder will no doubt rightly have a say over who the lease is assigned to, and no diligent person is going to buy ACL's assets including the lease without permission from the freeholder.

fernandopartridge · Nov 9, 2022

The Philosopher said:
Yes, but if MA assumes the position and rights of the Trustees then does he have the charge? Are there other secured creditors entitled to the P Share?

What are you on about?

Philosoraptor · Nov 9, 2022

Colin Steins Smile said:
My guess is that in the discussions between MA & CCC would focus on the investment into the area around the stadium to create new businesses and jobs. That's the benefit to CCC with greater revenues generated for the area

Surely they could do this as well if the lease was reverted to CCC.

slowpoke · Nov 9, 2022

Colin Steins Smile said:
My guess is that in the discussions between MA & CCC would focus on the investment into the area around the stadium to create new businesses and jobs. That's the benefit to CCC with greater revenues generated for the area

Probably has, if you count the Red Hills other side the canal and railway line there’s plenty of undeveloped land originally when the Ricoh was first muted there were plans and ideas for that area then.

duffer · Nov 9, 2022

oldskyblue58 said:
Having used pretty much the same play book when they "bought" CCFC out of administration you would think they understood the process going on. The frustrating thing is that they do not seem to have tested the administrators resolve until the last couple of days when it was too late because of exclusivity period (a common process in deals)

The whole process didnt start in the last couple of weeks it has been going on much longer than that. Wasps filed their NOI 21/09/2022 that was the trigger date not when ACL filed NOI because of the ownership and charges links

Whilst CCC have it seems approved a lease for the stadium with MA, did SISU even express a serious interest to the administrators sufficient to mean the administrators had a choice to make or compelled to put both bids forward. Pretty certain the only other serious interest that led anywhere was NEC. Of course, CCC are closely involved as freeholder they have to be. It is FRP that have advised who the preferred bidder would be though....... that was decided a while back i suspect.

The plan if Byng is to be believed, not sure i give him much credence to be honest, was to wait till no one buys ACL or doesn't do a prepack arrangement then to swoop in to buy a new lease and associated fixed assets at a knock down price from an administration that CCFC as a very minor unsecured creditor had no control of. Could they have outbid MA even in that situation?

They wanted a new lease, isnt the logic of such a thing that the existing and related leases all fail and have no worth. Not only shutting, at least for a time, the stadium but every other business operating there - including the casino? I assume everyone would need to acquire new leases at increased rent

The delapidations, well yes there are those costs but what is involved. Is it the bricks and mortar of the stadium or is it bringing major equipment like fire & safety, lifts etc up to current standard? It wont need to be done day 1 and the net cost of £13m could be nearer to £10m after corporation tax relief at the new rate is taken in to account.

Of course in a prepack situation you choose the assets that will be valuable to you then leave the "baggage" behind. So where is the baggage problem?

It is quite likely that the stadium would have to be closed to get the delapidation costs done in one go, so it could be sold on without that burden. Only CCC would be in a position to do that and the chances of lease reverting CCC to the detriment of the bondholders without significant legal challenge is remote - meaning very likely the stadium being shut longer because ownership would need to be settled so work could be done. How many home games left this season?

Far from no one wanting the current lease, or taking on the delapidations, it seems someone does. If the administrators receive more money from the prepack than an aggressive administration process that basically removes the existing lease for little or no value how is that worse for ACL creditors?

It is also not the case that NDA's are unusual, SISU have used them regularly. I am sure they are well aware of exclusivity periods. No point complaining its unfair, thems the rules of the game they know well.

Whilst they were attending meetings with council, ACL etc to keep the stadium open was that not a good time to express a serious interest in acquiring the stadium or to set up proper meetings to discuss with FRP or CCC?

The administration on 17th could well be the date that ownership changes and what is left in ACL gets ditched, not the start of a process that allows anyone else to bid further. What's the betting the MA exclusivity period runs to midnight on the 17th

just looks like more smoke and mirrors to me from CCFC owners, and "we tried but everyone else we can think of stopped us achieving purchase of the stadium". Not for the first time SISU have got their timings and plan wrong it looks like

Of course the MA deal could still fall flat on its face but that is looking increasingly less likely.

Also logically it isnt just the lease that MA would be buying. To have business as usual he would have to buy the Fixtures, Fittings, Equipment, stocks, the sub leases or licences, any goodwill etc (less delapidations of course), it is the creditors & liabilities he wont be buying in to.

I think it's even simpler than that OSB, I don't think SISU have got anywhere near sufficient funds to buy ACL out of admin (especially once any kind of serious bidder arrived). Short of being gifted the stadium, they were never really interested. Just mho of course.

As for the Council, I'd still like them as far away from it as possible. As far as I see it their duty is limited to that of the freeholder and that's what they should stick to.

The secret deals and under the table shite that they seem to delight in is not appropriate for elected officials or senior officers, and reeks of corruption and undue influence. I want them away from the club and the arena forever.

The Philosopher · Nov 9, 2022

fernandopartridge said:
What are you on about?

It’s fairly straightforward.

duffer · Nov 9, 2022

Philosorapter said:
Byng does have a point here.

Are CCC acting with Coventry resident's best interests in not letting the ACL 2006 lease revert back to the council?

They have the option to do this, and choose not to.

Would be interesting to see the cost and benefits of this, which CCC must have worked out beforehand.

The bondholders have a mortgage on the ACL lease, the council do not have an option to revert it back to themselves unless they want to get drawn into yet another legal battle. It's not that simple.

Wasps going into admin & the impact on CCFC (9 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency