Wasps facing relegation

[Tervueren]

Let’s be clear - there’s still a huge amount to happen here. We don’t know if we’ll be relegated or lose our P share. Once the emphasis shifted from financing the debt to seeking a takeover that was always going to happen in administration. People with the sort of money to buy the level of assets in the mix don’t get that much of it by spaffing it up the wall on a regular basis when they don’t have to. So now we’ll see if any of them are serious. There’s a huge mix of alternatives with Wasps the rugby entity not being of standout appeal but we don’t know. There is a huge amount to happen in this yet.

On the other site we call this gent the Dark Knight. Just a flesh wound this is.

That would be Batman, I think your reference is meant to be to the Black Knight. So the whole other site is Python ignorant?😀

[NellyWellyWaspy]

So, the Court case is on Monday. RFU seem to have confirmed that as soon as we enter administration, we will be relegated. They also seem to be confirming that the Covid clause will not be allowed, for us or Worcester.

It would appear that they are also prepared to a 10 team PRL top tier, and maybe a 10 team second team.

I doubt 10 teams will survive. With Wasps and Warriors gone, that leaves only 11. Expect three more to go.

[westwaleswasp]

No, but think everyone like the idea of Shugs being Batman, so nobody corrected it!

[westwaleswasp]

So, the Court case is on Monday. RFU seem to have confirmed that as soon as we enter administration, we will be relegated. They also seem to be confirming that the Covid clause will not be allowed, for us or Worcester.

It would appear that they are also prepared to a 10 team PRL top tier, and maybe a 10 team second team.

I doubt 10 teams will survive. With Wasps and Warriors gone, that leaves only 11. Expect three more to go.

On what basis? Is it a case that as there become fewer games they take less money, so it becomes increasingly harder for those on the edge?
From our selfish point of view is it best for several clubs to go, thus requiring  a bailout  to come into play. At the moment it will be an eleven team league. If 3 went it would be 8, would they then try and resurrect those fallen clubs in some way if they wanted a ten team league?

[mike909]

Amongst the commentators who are in the "no special treatment" for Wasps or indeed Worcester, there seems to be a confidence, not built on evidence, that there would be a viable pro rugby business in England. I suggest no evidence as if PRL and the RFU have no visibility on club finances, then who would?

Firstly, the RFU/PRL need to decide - backed by commercial data that clubs need to provide - if there is a viable Premier Rugby and how big that might be. I get the impression the "10 team league" is being tossed about but no one seems to have come up with it prior to the problems here and at Worc and without view of Premier finances. The Guardian article was one such speculative "story"

Secondly, if the conclusion that would be expected when faced by the loss of us and Worc, and potential of at least 3 more clubs in dire straits, is that there isn't a viable rugby union league in England, without top ups from the centre, then they need to take a very wide look at the England Rugby (so to speak) business model and associated financial risks.

If this is the case - then someone is going to need to have the courage to say that this is the case. That England Rugby via income from internationals and sponsorship and TV and projected income from a league (income as in contribution to overheads rather than profit re a "league") might be able to support "x" number of clubs.

If they, instead, look towards the "tossed around" idea of a 10 team league (who's going to be sacrificed?) then that ought not mean such a review of England Rugby and its financial position should be shelved. Unless that happens then the RFU and PRL are "hoping for the best" which is no one's idea of a business plan. Least not a sane plan...

FWIW - (prob not much!) I do think that it would be good for the RFU/PRL to stop Wasps/Worcs going under before such a review.  Pro rugby has a lowish visibility. Losing teams will make that worse and whilst there seems to be endless people willing to pay to support England, that's not been exploited to get those people and TV viewers to real games. And that stream of people is probably supported by a successful England, supported by a Pro structure.....I can see a problem there, with a shrinking Pro game....

[MarleyWasp]

If, as Gloucester have said, the cost of losing a home game is £350,000 and a P Share brings in £4m a year, then by removing the P Share from us and Worcester, after lost revenue is taken out of the equation, the clubs are selling us out for £27,272.23 extra a season. The issue then is who will invest in a league where financial difficulty could result in your club being stabbed in the back?

[Neils]

If, as Gloucester have said, the cost of losing a home game is £350,000 and a P Share brings in £4m a year, then by removing the P Share from us and Worcester, after lost revenue is taken out of the equation, the clubs are selling us out for £27,272.23 extra a season. The issue then is who will invest in a league where financial difficulty could result in your club being stabbed in the back?

I assume any future CVC money will go only to "the 10".

Also you do wonder what CVC are thinking as co-owners of the brand.

[Shugs]

No, but think everyone like the idea of Shugs being Batman, so nobody corrected it!

I have no idea who either character is. Thought I must have mentioned the clocks were going back or something.

[Neils]

No, but think everyone like the idea of Shugs being Batman, so nobody corrected it!

I have no idea who either character is. Thought I must have mentioned the clocks were going back or something.

Two weeks away.

[wasps]

I can see some merits to a 10 team league.
Players would be playing less games which is good for player welfare.
Rob Baxter said that attendances may increase for those 10 home games simply due to there being less of them. If this is the case, then it presumably ensures that each home game is more profitable




But, if a club has players who will now play 18 league games per season rather than 22, will they be expecting to reduce salaries by ~18%?
Some players previously said they'd consider a pay cut for fewer games, but would they when it becomes a reality?


Will there be less TV money and sponsorship money if clubs only have 9 home games rather than 11?


And on Baxter's point about increased attendances, will more people really turn up to each home game just because there's less of them per year?
The hardcore fans will go to every home game they can regardless of whether there's 9 or 11. Other fans typically pick and choose based on the opposition and other commitments, I'm not convinced that Exeter playing against Newcastle will get a significantly higher gate just because there's 9 home games in a season

[Bloke in North Dorset]

I agree with Mike, this looks like a hasty and ill thought through solution to a serious problem.

I can see the advantage of a 10 team league to DoRs and for player welfare. Fewer games, if any, during the international windows, maybe less need for rotation and smaller squads.

Commercially it lacks a lot thought. How much would TV companies pay for a 10 team league with no relegation? BT made their anger quite clear when relegation was scrapped last season. Also. with no or only a few games in the international windows the argument for the play-offs falls away. Why should the top of the league risk not being champions and claiming the prize money?

How many clubs will be allowed to play in the European Cup if the league is only 10 teams?  I find it hard to believe that other countries will be happy with 8 or even 6.

I can see 2 x 10 team leagues with 2 teams being relegated/promoted being more interesting to the TV companies, but the reason for the 10 team league is to protect the 10 founders' financial interests, so they aren't going to like that idea.

Its a mess, it might be a longer term solution but it isn't a solution to the current problems.

[JF]

I can't see that a ten-team league will generate more income unless you either get more bums on seats, cut your costs or increase telly revenue.

Regular fans will remain regular fans. Comparing ten teams to twelve, you will have to generate two games' worth of extra profit in the ten remaining home games just to stand still. And standing still is, for many clubs, loss-making. Where will the extra fans come from?

I don't need to use Excel to work out that this is insanely and unrealistically over-optimistic.

Reduce costs or increase revenue. It just so happens that 37 years ago today I started my accountancy training. In that time nothing has changed that formula for profit.

It may well be a short career for players. Yes, it's hard, and there is a risk of life-changing injury. But paying players more than their efforts bring in is madness.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

I can't see that a ten-team league will generate more income unless you either get more bums on seats, cut your costs or increase telly revenue.

Regular fans will remain regular fans. Comparing ten teams to twelve, you will have to generate two games' worth of extra profit in the ten remaining home games just to stand still. And standing still is, for many clubs, loss-making. Where will the extra fans come from?

I don't need to use Excel to work out that this is insanely and unrealistically over-optimistic.

Reduce costs or increase revenue. It just so happens that 37 years ago today I started my accountancy training. In that time nothing has changed that formula for profit.

It may well be a short career for players. Yes, it's hard, and there is a risk of life-changing injury. But paying players more than their efforts bring in is madness.

I suspect this is being driven by a few things.  Firstly that the powers that be assume that the rugby fans of the teams that go under will simply switch to new teams.  My personal feeling is that if Wasps go then I'm not going to follow domestic rugby. I'm certainly not going to follow any specific team.

Secondly if we take the wasps statements at face value - and I see no reason not to - then the issue was cashflow.  We did not have cash to hand to carry on.  Whatever the reason the long term plan became immaterial once we couldn't pay for the next few weeks.  Wasps and Worcester being removed from the competition may well have killed the cheetahs. They were expecting £700k through the tills in the next few weeks and now won't be getting it.  They will have to find a way to work around that.  And if they don't then who is next?

Thirdly it is always easier to tell yourself it was simply down to bad management and won't happen to them, but I think it is rapidly becoming clear that unless you have 100s of millions and are classed as a "proper rugby gent", or indeed have billions and are willing to throw a few million away every year or two, then your opinion and future doesn't matter. One wrong step and you will be left behind. 

It's pretty clear that we are not all in this together, and that those remaining are circling the wagons.

[Andywasp50]

So just nine teams competing to be runners up to the Cheats instead - how exciting. At least it will save me a BT Sports subscription. Like VV, I won’t be following the domestic game very closely if that’s the deal.

I think Baxter would be wise to remember where Chiefs came from before circling the wagons and counting the dosh.

A competition that has allowed the biggest modern British sporting cheating scandal with minimal punishment, and and now allows two clubs to go to the wall - one (with all due respect to Wuss) being of the greatest names of the professional era, and producer of many England internationals, doesn’t deserve much respect. I fear the pro game in England is rotten.

[HCWasp]

This week I asked a CEO of a Premier club how they’d cope with the rumoured ten team league and he spluttered about adding “a more meaningful cup competition”.