Details of London Irish collapse

[baldpaul101]

Don't really want to create another thread for people to post endless RFU/PRL rantings but reading the below copied form LI's message board I think its inevitable:


This is taken apparently from PowerDays accounts statement:

"This hugely disappointing event was the culmination of over 18 months of work spent looking to secure a buyer for the Club (which was offered for ?1 to a buyer willing to fund the club for the next 5 years), and continue the legacy started by Powerday and the Crossan family over a decade ago. The group had a number of interested parties and were successful in taking two such parties to final contract stage. Regrettably the first party withdrew after getting cold feet in June 2022 - citing the impact of the Ukrainian war on their own business.

More recently in the 7 months prior to administration the group engaged in a huge amount of work, carried out closely with the RFU, PRL and representatives of NUE Equity (an LA Based Fund), to complete a widely publicised deal to acquire the club. Negotiations became very challenging when Brentford advised of their intention to give notice on our tenure at Brentford. The negotiations became more challenging still when the RFU Financial Viability Group governing Body decided to issue public ultimatums to both Powerday and the potential purchasers to complete the transaction within an unrealistic timeline. We suspect that this very public outing of our potential buyers created a nervousness amongst our American investors ultimately leading to deal failure. This was further compounded by HMRC's decision to issue a winding up order against London Irish Rugby Club.

The reality is that professional rugby in this country is going through a hugely challenging time and, as we know, many clubs are sadly still struggling to return to a stable path following the pandemic. After a decade of supporting the club financially, it is not feasible for Powerday to continue absorbing indefinitely the multi-million-pound losses of the club each year.

In the Board's view, the professional game in this country needs to be radically transformed, and the current leadership must urgently review its practices from top to bottom if it has a desire to see professional rugby continue in England."

[Rossm]

That's pretty damning.

[Brandnewtorugby]

Have to wonder how speculative the interested parties were though.

[Trevs Big Tackle]

A quick google of the timeline suggests that's not accurate. London Irish struggled/were late paying wages due at the end of April. As far as I can see the RFU didn't get involved until the 15th of May, setting the 31st of May deadline for the takeover (which the RFU then extended by a week).

After London Irish struggled to pay the wages at the end of April I think the RFU had to say/do something.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

The article is being a little more than economical with the truth.

THE RFU instituted a requirement for advanced reporting of the next seasons financial arrangements for clubs, Premiership and Championship, and maybe all for all that I know. It did so because it was accused of being 'asleep at the wheel'. Every club had to submit detailed plans, was it in April, I think? Failure to do so would see the club suspended (kicked out).

Why? To make sure that all involved knew where they stood well in advance of next season. If the club was loss making, someone had to personally guarantee to cover those losses, and prove they could make good on those promises. In the PRL, only one club failed that test. London Irish. Because Crossan was unwilling to guarantee the losses. I don't blame him, it's his money after all. He asked for a one month can kicking to give him time to sell the club. The RFU, surprisingly, agreed. Given what transpired, I doubt that they will do that again. Then they issued a formal ultimatum, and even back slid on that for another few days. Had it not for HMRC issuing the winding up petition, I wouldn't mind betting the RFU would still be sliding in all directions.

The US consortium did not withdraw over that. It was a whole combination of things, including proving where the money had come from (shady offshore banks accounts) and proving they could cover losses for the foreseeable. The Brentford deal going sour was only a matter of time given that Crossan hadn't paid them fully for months.

It is all very well pointing (and getting the press to do the same for you) fingers at others, but Crossan was the one who closed his chequebook up a look time ago.

Which is to say, the sugar daddy funding model of the premiership (and a couple of Championship clubs) is utterly and totally unsustainable. Sugar daddy withdraws, club goes under. No back up plan.

[westwaleswasp]

The US consortium was as bent as a dog's hind leg. Whatever it was doing, looking to invest in a rugby club in an open fashion with identified sources of cash was not on the agenda.

There seems to be truth, but it has been clearly distorted.

[Heathen]

The US consortium was as bent as a dog's hind leg. Whatever it was doing, looking to invest in a rugby club in an open fashion with identified sources of cash was not on the agenda.

There seems to be truth, but it has been clearly distorted.

The same could be said about Worcester.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

And yet Tony Rowe's blatant cash juggling between Chiefs and SW Comms is fine. And Nigel Wray's actual cheating is fine too.

The fact is it's nothing to do with ethics, or legality, it's simply down to whether your face fits and whether you are part of the old firm.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

And yet Tony Rowe's blatant cash juggling between Chiefs and SW Comms is fine. And Nigel Wray's actual cheating is fine too.

The fact is it's nothing to do with ethics, or legality, it's simply down to whether your face fits and whether you are part of the old firm.

Ah, but SW Comms is 'sponsorship', until it isn't (when the money runs out).

[westwaleswasp]

The US consortium was as bent as a dog's hind leg. Whatever it was doing, looking to invest in a rugby club in an open fashion with identified sources of cash was not on the agenda.

There seems to be truth, but it has been clearly distorted.

The same could be said about Worcester.

Indeed.

[westwaleswasp]

And yet Tony Rowe's blatant cash juggling between Chiefs and SW Comms is fine. And Nigel Wray's actual cheating is fine too.

The fact is it's nothing to do with ethics, or legality, it's simply down to whether your face fits and whether you are part of the old firm.

Suspect Chiefs are fine for now, but that wolf is looking hungry, and the house isn't mae of brick. Rowe's juggling I think may be due to trying to ensure that if he needs to or has to pull out, he gets the maximum amount of cash back.