Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: Vespula Vulgaris on October 16, 2022, 07:08:38 PM
-
If one of the other Premiership clubs, any of them, had come out publicly and offered unwavering support to Wasps. Stating that they shouldn't be relegated, that they shouldn't lose the P Share....
They'd have picked up a load of new fans.
-
Yes, this is true!
-
Maybe that depends a bit on the club! But yes, it would have been . . . ''fam'ly'' and all that. Or not.
-
To take that a bit further. There are 2, maybe 3 sweating on their own finances. If they’d have come out forcibly in favour of us not being stripped of the P share they may have safeguarded themselves. But they’ve hunkered down, praying that someone joins us and Wuss. They know full well once the 10 are in place PRL/RFU etc etc will sweat blood to protect their slimmed down elite.
-
To take that a bit further. There are 2, maybe 3 sweating on their own finances. If they’d have come out forcibly in favour of us not being stripped of the P share they may have safeguarded themselves. But they’ve hunkered down, praying that someone joins us and Wuss. They know full well once the 10 are in place PRL/RFU etc etc will sweat blood to protect their slimmed down elite.
Equally they have a fair argument that if clubs are able to use administration to wipe their debts and come back into the fold unscathed, it sets an unwelcome precedent. We did vote for the 'closed shop' after all.
-
To take that a bit further. There are 2, maybe 3 sweating on their own finances. If they’d have come out forcibly in favour of us not being stripped of the P share they may have safeguarded themselves. But they’ve hunkered down, praying that someone joins us and Wuss. They know full well once the 10 are in place PRL/RFU etc etc will sweat blood to protect their slimmed down elite.
Equally they have a fair argument that if clubs are able to use administration to wipe their debts and come back into the fold unscathed, it sets an unwelcome precedent. We did vote for the 'closed shop' after all.
I read Massey-Phillips comments around that and thought it was a nonsensical argument - it’s full of holes and was just a backside covering piece of bluster…
“There is a scenario where a club could just write off all of its debt,” he said. “But then if it retains its P share you then have a league where the vast majority of teams still have significant debt, playing against a team that has no debt but retains the same income as them from the P share. So you have another form of disruption and inequality.”
So how does he explain clubs currently playing with significant debt against the likes of clubs in the black like Exeter and Saracens? Is he saying it’s unfair for clubs in the black to have a P share and play clubs in debt full stop?
The PRL and RFU have already stated that they don’t get involved in individual club finances and consider them as businesses out of their remit, so why does it matter if they find a way to clear it and take the relegation hit? This especially as not including the P share means buyers pull out of saving us and effectively signs our death warrant.
Why didn’t it matter with the Cheats when they had an unfair financial advantage over a number of years with their method of financing breaking the cap?
Obviously you cant have clubs going in and out of administration regularly to clear their debts, but his words above sound like a load of bluster to cover the sudden U turn from a 14 team competition to 10 teams, which is a decision that has emerged out of the ether since Baxter first touched on it last week and feels driven by some clubs with an interest in sharing the spoils. The bigger return from less shares allowing some clubs to profit more over others with significant debt!
-
Just the very existence of a P share seems ridiculous to me.
I don't know if other sports have something similar.
It should be that if you play in the premiership then you're entitled to your share of the TV money for that season.
You should also have some input on decisions made that season too.
This "us Vs them" bullshit is inequality in itself and doesn't feel right.
-
Andywasp50,
As I've said elsewhere, the idea that clubs can go in to administration just to wipe out debts is financial nonsense. The courts won't allow it and the creditors have a say and you won't get credit anyway after you've tried it once.
-
I've noticed an evident sound of silence from all the other clubs, with the notable exception of the Worcester fans who know what we're dealing with.
Not so much "rugby family" as "dysfunctional family".
-
Uncaaring family. Of the still ''functioning'' clubs I've so far only seen one sympathetic comment (other than Wuss) that has appeared on either site, from a Saint. With, I think, the best of intentions he suggested going to Saints as it was near to Coventry. A kind thought but not one I could accept for many reasons.
-
I wish I could draw because I envisage a cartoon that has 2 drowning men, one in Wasps shirt the other in Worcester shirt, clutching at a life raft called P Shares. Around them 11 sharks are circling, each wearing one of the other clubs' shirts.
-
Some interesting thoughts on the P-Shares from JB at Eggchasers and how valuable they actually are (and will be).
My understanding is that the P-Shares get 'rescinded' from us by PRL and it doesn't seem like they are required to pay for them - They effectively take them back and divide them by the remaining shareholders.
So despite them down as a healthy asset on the balance sheet, they're effectively worth nothing as an asset (although obviously are as an income stream). I don't believe the Clubs can simply go and 'buy' our P-Shares to then get a greater slice of the pie (it has to be a unanimous agreement from all shareholders and it's not weighted by shareholding).
I'm guessing the income is around £1.9m per season via TV Rights and around £1.25m via RFU agreement (crude calcuations - CVC own 27% and have split the remainder via '14' to include 13 teams and PRL as equal shareholders. Most recent BT Sport deal was £110m for 3 season, RFU deal is unclear but the first 4 seasons was £28m per season could be more/less now).
-
I read Massey-Phillips comments around that and thought it was a nonsensical argument - it’s full of holes and was just a backside covering piece of bluster…
“There is a scenario where a club could just write off all of its debt,” he said. “But then if it retains its P share you then have a league where the vast majority of teams still have significant debt, playing against a team that has no debt but retains the same income as them from the P share. So you have another form of disruption and inequality.”
So how does he explain clubs currently playing with significant debt against the likes of clubs in the black like Exeter and Saracens? Is he saying it’s unfair for clubs in the black to have a P share and play clubs in debt full stop?
The PRL and RFU have already stated that they don’t get involved in individual club finances and consider them as businesses out of their remit, so why does it matter if they find a way to clear it and take the relegation hit? This especially as not including the P share means buyers pull out of saving us and effectively signs our death warrant.
Why didn’t it matter with the Cheats when they had an unfair financial advantage over a number of years with their method of financing breaking the cap?
Obviously you cant have clubs going in and out of administration regularly to clear their debts, but his words above sound like a load of bluster to cover the sudden U turn from a 14 team competition to 10 teams, which is a decision that has emerged out of the ether since Baxter first touched on it last week and feels driven by some clubs with an interest in sharing the spoils. The bigger return from less shares allowing some clubs to profit more over others with significant debt!
The point stands-we voted for a closed shop. You might be right, a smaller group of clubs want a bigger share of the spoils, but were we bothered about that when we supported denying clubs the right to promotion? I don't think so. What were our offerings to the wider rugby family below the Premiership then?
Unfortunately what goes around, comes around.
-
I read Massey-Phillips comments around that and thought it was a nonsensical argument - it’s full of holes and was just a backside covering piece of bluster…
“There is a scenario where a club could just write off all of its debt,” he said. “But then if it retains its P share you then have a league where the vast majority of teams still have significant debt, playing against a team that has no debt but retains the same income as them from the P share. So you have another form of disruption and inequality.”
So how does he explain clubs currently playing with significant debt against the likes of clubs in the black like Exeter and Saracens? Is he saying it’s unfair for clubs in the black to have a P share and play clubs in debt full stop?
The PRL and RFU have already stated that they don’t get involved in individual club finances and consider them as businesses out of their remit, so why does it matter if they find a way to clear it and take the relegation hit? This especially as not including the P share means buyers pull out of saving us and effectively signs our death warrant.
Why didn’t it matter with the Cheats when they had an unfair financial advantage over a number of years with their method of financing breaking the cap?
Obviously you cant have clubs going in and out of administration regularly to clear their debts, but his words above sound like a load of bluster to cover the sudden U turn from a 14 team competition to 10 teams, which is a decision that has emerged out of the ether since Baxter first touched on it last week and feels driven by some clubs with an interest in sharing the spoils. The bigger return from less shares allowing some clubs to profit more over others with significant debt!
The point stands-we voted for a closed shop. You might be right, a smaller group of clubs want a bigger share of the spoils, but were we bothered about that when we supported denying clubs the right to promotion? I don't think so. What were our offerings to the wider rugby family below the Premiership then?
Unfortunately what goes around, comes around.
I appreciate that the club will have voted for a closed shop but I remember many Wasps fans (amongst many other fans of different clubs) disagreeing with removing relegation.
-
I appreciate that the club will have voted for a closed shop but I remember many Wasps fans (amongst many other fans of different clubs) disagreeing with removing relegation.
But the club did vote for it-and so whatever we as fans may have thought, the club put itself in this position. Supporting this when losing £10 million a year with a looming bond repayment deadline just seems like gross mismanagement.
I'd suggest that those annoyed at third parties ought to look at the executives in our own club.
-
I appreciate that the club will have voted for a closed shop but I remember many Wasps fans (amongst many other fans of different clubs) disagreeing with removing relegation.
But the club did vote for it-and so whatever we as fans may have thought, the club put itself in this position. Supporting this when losing £10 million a year with a looming bond repayment deadline just seems like gross mismanagement.
I'd suggest that those annoyed at third parties ought to look at the executives in our own club.
Yes, the club could have done far better but that doesn't mean the anger directed towards third parties is unwarranted. You're telling me that the response would be the same if Tigers were in this position? Absolutely not, PRL and the RFU would bend over backwards to make sure they survived.
Could Wasps management have done better? Yes. Are fans wrong to be angry at third parties? No.
-
I appreciate that the club will have voted for a closed shop but I remember many Wasps fans (amongst many other fans of different clubs) disagreeing with removing relegation.
But the club did vote for it-and so whatever we as fans may have thought, the club put itself in this position. Supporting this when losing £10 million a year with a looming bond repayment deadline just seems like gross mismanagement.
I'd suggest that those annoyed at third parties ought to look at the executives in our own club.
Yes, the club could have done far better but that doesn't mean the anger directed towards third parties is unwarranted. You're telling me that the response would be the same if Tigers were in this position? Absolutely not, PRL and the RFU would bend over backwards to make sure they survived.
Could Wasps management have done better? Yes. Are fans wrong to be angry at third parties? No.
+1
How ever much they might have failed at least our management took a risk and tried something. The PRL & RFU have completely washed their hands of us and made no effort, to the extent it feels like they are happy to see the back of us.
-
Yes, the club could have done far better but that doesn't mean the anger directed towards third parties is unwarranted. You're telling me that the response would be the same if Tigers were in this position? Absolutely not, PRL and the RFU would bend over backwards to make sure they survived.
Could Wasps management have done better? Yes. Are fans wrong to be angry at third parties? No.
What could the PRL/RFU do to help us here? We owe an enormous amount of money to a lot of entities and we don't have it. It was said above, rightly, that we don't want the RFU interfering with the business affairs of the different clubs.
-
Yes, the club could have done far better but that doesn't mean the anger directed towards third parties is unwarranted. You're telling me that the response would be the same if Tigers were in this position? Absolutely not, PRL and the RFU would bend over backwards to make sure they survived.
Could Wasps management have done better? Yes. Are fans wrong to be angry at third parties? No.
What could the PRL/RFU do to help us here? We owe an enormous amount of money to a lot of entities and we don't have it. It was said above, rightly, that we don't want the RFU interfering with the business affairs of the different clubs.
Allowed us to keep the P share and then Armstrong's buy out would have succeeded.
-
Yes, the club could have done far better but that doesn't mean the anger directed towards third parties is unwarranted. You're telling me that the response would be the same if Tigers were in this position? Absolutely not, PRL and the RFU would bend over backwards to make sure they survived.
Could Wasps management have done better? Yes. Are fans wrong to be angry at third parties? No.
What could the PRL/RFU do to help us here? We owe an enormous amount of money to a lot of entities and we don't have it. It was said above, rightly, that we don't want the RFU interfering with the business affairs of the different clubs.
Allowed us to keep the P share and then Armstrong's buy out would have succeeded.
This exactly
-
Allowed us to keep the P share and then Armstrong's buy out would have succeeded.
Why should we have had that luxury but not Wuss?
-
I don't think anyone is saying Wuss shouldn't be afforded the same, but this is a Wasps board, so I guess, strangely, people are focussing on what the PRL / RFU can do to help us.
-
I think there's a lot of anger and frustration being directed at the RFU and PRL and probably unfairly (IMO).
Our plan hasn't worked out; some would suggest it was incompetence others believe it was a good plan that hasn't worked out. Almost all of the naysayers reckon a better plan was a sugar daddy + rent a stadium in London. Hardly a grand masterplan, zero long-term potential of sustainability.
Irish bleed cash, Saracens have had their debt wiped by a generous previous owner and have had a fresh-start and now operating a model that is a smaller scale of ours; multiple income streams. Quins are based in the beating heart of UK Rugby Union, regularly sell-out the stadium they own and play entertaining rugby but still don't consistently make a profit or break even.
There has been little discussion from fans around how Professional Rugby should be run in the past 5+ years, so to blame PRL now seems harsh - Even if, with hindsight, they should have done something about this sooner and perhaps COVID should have been the catalyst to accelerate change beyond just reducing the salary cap.
It's fair to suggest that should PRL effectively allow us to shed our debt, keep our P-Share and bounce back up, it would be unfair on the other teams. I totally accept that it feels to non-Saracens fans that they were treated generously. But they haven't really had a material effect on our issues (salary inflation aside, but as per the Walder in The Telegraph thread, that's not a big figure in the grand scheme of things).
-
I don't think anyone is saying Wuss shouldn't be afforded the same, but this is a Wasps board, so I guess, strangely, people are focussing on what the PRL / RFU can do to help us.
Of course, but my point is another club had already had its P share removed. To then allow another to keep it despite clearly being insolvent just wasn't an option.
-
Every thread negative comments
-
I think there's a lot of anger and frustration being directed at the RFU and PRL and probably unfairly (IMO).
Our plan hasn't worked out; some would suggest it was incompetence others believe it was a good plan that hasn't worked out. Almost all of the naysayers reckon a better plan was a sugar daddy + rent a stadium in London. Hardly a grand masterplan, zero long-term potential of sustainability.
Irish bleed cash, Saracens have had their debt wiped by a generous previous owner and have had a fresh-start and now operating a model that is a smaller scale of ours; multiple income streams. Quins are based in the beating heart of UK Rugby Union, regularly sell-out the stadium they own and play entertaining rugby but still don't consistently make a profit or break even.
There has been little discussion from fans around how Professional Rugby should be run in the past 5+ years, so to blame PRL now seems harsh - Even if, with hindsight, they should have done something about this sooner and perhaps COVID should have been the catalyst to accelerate change beyond just reducing the salary cap.
It's fair to suggest that should PRL effectively allow us to shed our debt, keep our P-Share and bounce back up, it would be unfair on the other teams. I totally accept that it feels to non-Saracens fans that they were treated generously. But they haven't really had a material effect on our issues (salary inflation aside, but as per the Walder in The Telegraph thread, that's not a big figure in the grand scheme of things).
+1
-
Every thread negative comments
Indeed.
-
Every thread negative comments
I'd rather be looking forward to the Sharks game tomorrow but it's been cancelled because the club's existence is in question. A bit hard to stay positive under the circumstances.
-
I don't think anyone is saying Wuss shouldn't be afforded the same, but this is a Wasps board, so I guess, strangely, people are focussing on what the PRL / RFU can do to help us.
Of course, but my point is another club had already had its P share removed. To then allow another to keep it despite clearly being insolvent just wasn't an option.
Maybe it's just a bit much to expect people to say '..and Wuss have their share returned' each time our P share is mentioned. I think you are wilfully looking for negatives.
-
Allowed us to keep the P share and then Armstrong's buy out would have succeeded.
Why should we have had that luxury but not Wuss?
Because even with the P share Worcester were insolvent, nobody was saying they could rescue them is allowed to keep it, and so they were basically thrown out of the league.
If we were allowed to keep it and just get a 35pt deduction there a good chance we could fulfil this season's fixtures and saved the club and what is looking like the makings a very successful squad.
-
I don't begrudge Falcon his perceived negative comments. Many of their points are entirely valid, and some might say (s)he's just offering a much needed reality check.
The tipping point for our current predicament was not the bonds as such, but debts to HMRC. If cash flow was such that we've ended up where we are now, then why was the stadium redeveloped over the summer? That just looks like money flushed down the toilet. And why were we signing someone like Koch who would not have come cheap when we evidently couldn't afford it? A few gripes on here about squad downgrades, and a few more disappointing seasons around 8th-10th in the league against pages and pages on multiple threads about the imminent demise of the club altogether. We were living beyond our means.
And Falcon is right, in that Wasps, along with the rest of the Prem, were quite happy with their lot when they were on the inside. A bit of self-interest was OK then was it? What's changed, other than the fact that our club is now at risk of being one of the have-nots as opposed to one of the haves? Fans think differently, but they're not the ones making the self-interested decisions. I have friends and family who are fans of Quins, Saints, Tigers, Bristol; and all, without exception, have been very sympathetic to our plight and lament a future in elite club rugby without Wasps; just as we were all sympathetic as things unraveled at Worcester. It's those in charge at those clubs that are now looking to pull up the ladder. Genuine fans of all clubs would not seek exclude Wasps, Worcester or anyone else from being able to make a swift return.
We're all full of many negative emotions at the moment, and there is a lot of anger. Some will direct that anger at 3rd parties, but inevitably much of that anger will end up directed at the club management rather than seeking scapegoats who were not directly responsible for the day to day running of Wasps. Don't shoot Falcon down just because they happen to be new to this board and hit us with a few hard truths.
-
The tipping point for our current predicament was not the bonds as such, but debts to HMRC. If cash flow was such that we've ended up where we are now, then why was the stadium redeveloped over the summer?
Perhaps because it had to be done in order to secure the financing for the bond?
Anyway fwiw I have removed The Falcon. Whether (s)he is a CCFC troll or not I have no patience for people who only post to stir up trouble. There is enough of that right now.
-
The tipping point for our current predicament was not the bonds as such, but debts to HMRC. If cash flow was such that we've ended up where we are now, then why was the stadium redeveloped over the summer?
Perhaps because it had to be done in order to secure the financing for the bond?
Anyway fwiw I have removed The Falcon. Whether (s)he is a CCFC troll or not I have no patience for people who only post to stir up trouble. There is enough of that right now.
Quite agree, VV. I had a look at it's posting record and not one post was Wasps positive. Even it's contribution to The Endless Thread was 'football'.
-
The tipping point for our current predicament was not the bonds as such, but debts to HMRC. If cash flow was such that we've ended up where we are now, then why was the stadium redeveloped over the summer?
Perhaps because it had to be done in order to secure the financing for the bond?
Anyway fwiw I have removed The Falcon. Whether (s)he is a CCFC troll or not I have no patience for people who only post to stir up trouble. There is enough of that right now.
Thanks VV. There was an anti Wasps and zero tolerance theme in all The Falcon’s posts. Maybe it was Massie-Taylor!
FWIW My answer to him would have been Wuss had no buyer or clear offering, whilst Armstrong had his bid ready to buy but dependent on the P share.
A sad day for all of us and I just wanted to say thanks to everyone on here for sharing thoughts, ideas and opinions with each other in our love for the club over the years, whether we were agreeing or disagreeing. It’s therapeutic right now being able to read stuff on here given what were going through.
Let’s hope we are back soon, whatever the club looks like and wherever we play.
-
Let’s hope we are back soon, whatever the club looks like and wherever we play.
There is no professional club any more so I don't think there is anything to come back.
-
FWIW My answer to him would have been Wuss had no buyer or clear offering, whilst Armstrong had his bid ready to buy but dependent on the P share.
Thought Warriors had Jim O’Toole lined up who said that he’s ready to act as soon as they’re in Administration but kept P-Share?
-
Let’s hope we are back soon, whatever the club looks like and wherever we play.
There is no professional club any more so I don't think there is anything to come back.
The first part is true. The second is dependent on how real the conversations with interested parties are that FRP reference they’re continuing to hold.