Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: MarleyWasp on April 25, 2023, 09:48:25 AM
-
Worcester Warriors: Atlas sale must be confirmed by 2 May, say administrators
Begbies Traynor, the former Premiership club's administrators, has issued a 27-page progress report outlining the work it has done since first being appointed last September.
In it, media speculation of a 90-day completion clause has been confirmed.
This dates back to when Atlas partners Jim O'Toole and James Sandford were officially appointed on 1 February.
Since then, Atlas have withdrawn their application to play in next season's Championship and attempted a form of merger with fellow Worcestershire club side Stourbridge, in an attempt to avoid having to restart too far down English rugby's pyramid.
They also outlined a plan to rebrand as Sixways Rugby, although that upset so many supporters that they quickly had to do a U-turn.
They then said at a public meeting at Sixways on 18 February that an agreement in principle had been struck for fellow financially-stricken neighbours Wasps to play at the ground next season.
But, despite requests to talk to both O'Toole and Sandford, nothing has been said publicly from either club since.
And, although verbal agreements are supposedly in place for Warriors' women's team and local non-league football side Worcester Raiders to utilise the artificial pitch at Sixways, they are both subject to the Warriors takeover being confirmed on 2 May.
Fellow bidder Steve Diamond, the former Worcester director of rugby - whose own bid was not taken up by Begbies Traynor - is currently out of the running, having taken up a consultancy role with Edinburgh.
But that was only a short-term appointment until the end of the season - and it has also been reported that he, in a proposed alliance with main former club sponsor Adam Hewitt, remains a serious contender.
Analysis - Highlights of Begbies Traynor report
Trevor Owens, BBC Hereford & Worcester sports editor
The progress report has been produced by the administrators, solely to comply with their statutory duty to report to creditors.
They confirm that Atlas paid an exclusivity fee of ?500,000 as a non-refundable deposit - and that completion is due on or before 2 May.
It is also stipulated that Atlas cannot dispose of Sixways Stadium, or the land surrounding it, for five years after completion.
Begbies Traynor also says the concept of rugby creditors does not exist under the act. In fact, it is fundamentally at odds with certain insolvency principles.
-
That explains why Wasps can't announce anything if the plan is to play at Sixways, Atlas aren't the owners.
If Sixways is the plan I hope there's a Plan B as Atlas don't look like completing and the I don't think the Administrator will want to try to sell with a sitting tenant or try to run the stadium themselves while they search for a new buyer.
-
Thanks for posting.
An interesting statement -
Begbies Traynor also says the concept of rugby creditors does not exist under the act. In fact, it is fundamentally at odds with certain insolvency principles.
-
That explains why Wasps can't announce anything if the plan is to play at Sixways, Atlas aren't the owners.
If Sixways is the plan I hope there's a Plan B as Atlas don't look like completing and the I don't think the Administrator will want to try to sell with a sitting tenant or try to run the stadium themselves while they search for a new buyer.
Pretty much confirms what I said a few weeks ago. I don't think Atlas will complete, as the RFU have publicly said they will not allow the Stourbridge deal to happen. There is no way Wasps will afford any rental deal, and I suspect that Solihull Moors have long since gone off their deal.
The problem Wasps have are two fold. No ground, and no finance. It is already far too late to sort things out for next September (they would have to be ready for the cup games), and the RFU have said NO to delaying it for a year. The RFU have also refused to say whether Wasps would ever be allowed back in to the PRL, as it looks increasingly likely that the RFU/PRL are looking to ring fence the PRL to 8 or 10 clubs, and say to all other clubs, 'You're on your own.'
So, no chance of promotion would mean no finance, which in turn would mean not paying the rugby creditors. Which puts Wasps in the same place as Warriors. Dead. I am sure it wasn't what the RFU wanted, but may have been what the richer PRL club owners wanted.
Wasps also know, as the RFU have made clear, it cannot merge in the way Atlas had proposed to catch a ride up the leagues. They might allow a merger much further down, but ...
That isn't to say it's all over, but it is getting mighty close.
-
Thanks for posting.
An interesting statement -
Begbies Traynor also says the concept of rugby creditors does not exist under the act. In fact, it is fundamentally at odds with certain insolvency principles.
Yes, as it treats certain creditors preferentially, which is not allowed under insolvency law. If Rugby creditors were paid, it would open up the new owners to legal challenges in Court for payment to all creditors. It would get expensive and inevitably end up going all the way through the civil courts, and we know how long that could take. My wife's view (as a retired Insolvency Practitioner) is that the Courts would likely rule it illegal. Meaning that the RFU is asking Phoenix clubs to do something illegal. Which would then open up the RFU liable to legal action. Wasps new owners have nothing to lose, and should go ahead even now and slap the RFU with such an action. That would wake someone there up. That might force then to remove the payment of rugby creditors rule. And also, they would then have to give Wasps and Warriors the extra time they would need.
-
Talking of extra time needed, worth noting that 2nd May is a week today.
Next Monday, 1st, is a Bank Holiday.
No chance.
-
Thanks for posting.
An interesting statement -
Begbies Traynor also says the concept of rugby creditors does not exist under the act. In fact, it is fundamentally at odds with certain insolvency principles.
Yes, as it treats certain creditors preferentially, which is not allowed under insolvency law. If Rugby creditors were paid, it would open up the new owners to legal challenges in Court for payment to all creditors. It would get expensive and inevitably end up going all the way through the civil courts, and we know how long that could take. My wife's view (as a retired Insolvency Practitioner) is that the Courts would likely rule it illegal. Meaning that the RFU is asking Phoenix clubs to do something illegal. Which would then open up the RFU liable to legal action. Wasps new owners have nothing to lose, and should go ahead even now and slap the RFU with such an action. That would wake someone there up. That might force then to remove the payment of rugby creditors rule. And also, they would then have to give Wasps and Warriors the extra time they would need.
Interesting. This issue alone could already be being challenged by either or both sets of administrators. Further evidence that the RFU doesn't know its gluteus from its humerus!
-
Wasps also know, as the RFU have made clear, it cannot merge in the way Atlas had proposed to catch a ride up the leagues. They might allow a merger much further down, but ...
Counties 2 low enough? There's an amateur club in Acton that would be a very good match.
-
The problem Wasps have are two fold. No ground, and no finance.
I don't see those as necessarily being correct. No ground. Probably not no.
But if New Wasps got permission from the RFU to buy Wasps they must have been able to provide proof of enough money to pay rugby creditors & finance a sensible plan to run a club. How can Wasps now have no money to do the very thing they are supposed to have proved to the RFU?
-
The problem Wasps have are two fold. No ground, and no finance.
I don't see those as necessarily being correct. No ground. Probably not no.
But if New Wasps got permission from the RFU to buy Wasps they must have been able to provide proof of enough money to pay rugby creditors & finance a sensible plan to run a club. How can Wasps now have no money to do the very thing they are supposed to have proved to the RFU?
It is entirely possible that the initial (approved) proposal had backers that were conditional on the RFU accepting, and other conditions (such as having the opportunity to gain promotion), the latter of which the RFU has subsequently resolutely refused to confirm, which might have caused the (at the time) arranged finance to fall by the wayside, and force Wasps to hunt for an alternative, which, by the sounds of things, they have not succeeded with.
The RFU theoretically allow Phoenix clubs, but now will not let them get promoted. Without that potential financial gain, no-one will agree to pay rugby creditors, so the Phoenix rules are useless. Think how annoyed many Championship clubs will be when final confirmation comes that the trapdoor works one way only. I suspect it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Let alone the effect that laying off 100 professionals and dumping them out of the game is going to cause to recruitment at junior level, plus as many again if 3 additional PRL clubs finally go under. Even in my very cynical eyes, I can see that this is far worse than I thought it would be.
Do you remember Pro rugby, someone will ask 20 years from now? It will be about as entertaining and competitive as pro wrestling, shown only on some third rate obscure sports channel.
-
Lets remember with the lack of official Wasps words all we have is spurious leaks and speculation from a bunch of pay by the inch hacks. Nothing positive or negative has been said by Wasps since 18th Feb when they refuted the Atlas claims about Sixways.
Like everyone I am by now thoroughly pissed off and can't see anything happening. Maybe if they have some money and desire they should pour it into the Twyford Ave Wasps entity. I suppose there may be surprises yet but I am certainly not holding my breathe.
-
Interesting commenst on the Warriors board re the Atlas report:
"The Administrators set out their argument in respect of accepting bids quite clearly:-
"As such, when assessing competing offers it would not be appropriate for us to prefer an offer that provides for repayment of rugby creditors ahead of an offer that does not, merely because rugby creditors would be repaid under that first offer. If this position was taken, then the secondary preferential creditor (HMRC) would be adversely impacted by proceeding with an alternative offer"
Much has been made in the past about which bidder would or would not settle rugby creditors. Various figures have been mentioned but it is clear from the report that even the RFU itself has yet to interpret its own definition. By way of example the report mentions that one Premiership club has claimed close to half a million pounds in respect of a cancelled game and that other clubs were considering doing the same. Thus a figure of maybe ?4m could be claimed just in this one single category alone.
I therefore do have to say that in this respect, and in this respect only, I fully understand the Atlas point of view. There was no agreed final total of rugby creditors. If there was, it might well have amounted to well over ?10m in total. That amount could simply not be justified in business terms."
Can other prem clubs really be claiming money for missed games as "Rugby debt? I thought the rugby creditors had been defined, but amounts could fluctuate due to original contracts expiring and other technical matters?
-
This all seems quite straightforward and I think we've discussed it before, the Administrator and RFU/PRL are independent entities.
The Administrator has an obligation to get the best deal possible for all the creditors, and there is a seniority in those creditors. What the RFU and PRL require as re-entry to the leagues is none of their business and they can't take it in to account when assessing bids.
The RFU can make up their own rules about whether or not someone buying a bankrupt entity will be allowed back in to the professional game and that should be nothing to do with the Administrator.
The value of the bankrupt entity is seriously depressed by the RFU/PRL requirements but IMHO (IANAL) that should be nothing to do with the courts.
-
The RFU can make up their own rules about whether or not someone buying a bankrupt entity will be allowed back in to the professional game and that should be nothing to do with the Administrator.
Only insofar as those rules do not, or require a third party to, break the law. It could be argued that the rugby creditors rule does just that. Curiously, that same rule also depresses the likely value of the club name and goodwill.
-
Can other prem clubs really be claiming money for missed games as "Rugby debt? I thought the rugby creditors had been defined, but amounts could fluctuate due to original contracts expiring and other technical matters?
Most if not all commercial contracts exclude consequential damages such as loss income so it will be interesting to see what precedent is set - has anyone ever used the phoenix club provisions to re-establish a failed rugby club?
-
The RFU can make up their own rules about whether or not someone buying a bankrupt entity will be allowed back in to the professional game and that should be nothing to do with the Administrator.
Only insofar as those rules do not, or require a third party to, break the law. It could be argued that the rugby creditors rule does just that. Curiously, that same rule also depresses the likely value of the club name and goodwill.
I agree is supressing the value but I'm not sure is against the letter or spirit of bankruptcy laws as we'd have heard from a KC on the issue by now. I agree it might be against the spirit and even intended laws, but that's different. We might be in to tax evasion v avoidance territory here.
-
Can other prem clubs really be claiming money for missed games as "Rugby debt? I thought the rugby creditors had been defined, but amounts could fluctuate due to original contracts expiring and other technical matters?
Most if not all commercial contracts exclude consequential damages such as loss income so it will be interesting to see what precedent is set - has anyone ever used the phoenix club provisions to re-establish a failed rugby club?
Coventry went bust and used the rules I think.
-
The RFU can make up their own rules about whether or not someone buying a bankrupt entity will be allowed back in to the professional game and that should be nothing to do with the Administrator.
Only insofar as those rules do not, or require a third party to, break the law. It could be argued that the rugby creditors rule does just that. Curiously, that same rule also depresses the likely value of the club name and goodwill.
I agree is supressing the value but I'm not sure is against the letter or spirit of bankruptcy laws as we'd have heard from a KC on the issue by now. I agree it might be against the spirit and even intended laws, but that's different. We might be in to tax evasion v avoidance territory here.
The Rugby Creditors rule does not break any laws. It's a commercial transaction that allows a separate legal (to the one that went bankrupt) to buy an accelerated entry to the RFU's league structure.
-
Clutching at straws/Scotch mist/flying pigs/etc, could there be the flimsiest chance that the Legends were aware of (or were expecting) this non-action etc on the part of Atlas? If so (please God) they might - just might - have had a long-term cunning plan. Or not.
-
Can other prem clubs really be claiming money for missed games as "Rugby debt? I thought the rugby creditors had been defined, but amounts could fluctuate due to original contracts expiring and other technical matters?
Most if not all commercial contracts exclude consequential damages such as loss income so it will be interesting to see what precedent is set - has anyone ever used the phoenix club provisions to re-establish a failed rugby club?
Coventry went bust and used the rules I think.
Interesting that it can work for Championship clubs.
For Premier League clubs there is a double whammy of a larger Rugby Creditors debt and the need to finance a P share.
-
From Coventry RFC Wikipedia:
..." In December 2009 the club was placed into administration [2] and later in January 2010 brought back out thanks to Jon Bowles.[3] Coventry Rugby Ltd was created at this time and the first Board Of Directors was formed. A 15 point league deduction penalty was applied due to administration and relegation predictably followed from the Championship, with the club regrouping in National League 1 for the 2010?11 season with the club going part-time again."
Interestingly the Administrators were Begbies-Traynor Group.
-
I wonder if Wasps are waiting to see what transpires on Tuesday.
-
I wonder if Wasps are waiting to see what transpires on Tuesday.
If Plan A is to play at Sixways for a few years they have no choice.
-
It might be the other way around. Atlas may be waiting for Wasps (to get their finance in order), without whom Sixways would (maybe) not be viable?
-
It might be the other way around. Atlas may be waiting for Wasps (to get their finance in order), without whom Sixways would (maybe) not be viable?
If they are they are shot as only one more day.
-
It might be the other way around. Atlas may be waiting for Wasps (to get their finance in order), without whom Sixways would (maybe) not be viable?
Good point, but my guess is either way there?s lots of plates spinning in the form of contracts waiting to be signed, all interlinked and waiting for something external to happen.
-
Strikes me the brake on things is also the most fundamental- funding. Wasps did say a while back two models were on the table. Funded and pro or non funded and amateur. I guess we?re looking at the second option given the timescales - possibly at Henley.
-
Strikes me the brake on things is also the most fundamental- funding. Wasps did say a while back two models were on the table. Funded and pro or non funded and amateur. I guess we?re looking at the second option given the timescales - possibly at Henley.
Not sure what you mean by non funded Shugs as a championship side needs additional funding over and above the RFU current funding.
Locating in Henley as a championship side without the clear expectation and route to a swift return to the Premiership is also likely to raise objections from Rams, Chinnor and Henley, all of a similar standard to unfunded New Wasps, albeit all better organised to raise the funds required to operate at that level.
-
Yes, not as stark as funded or not. The second option just requires far less cash.
-
Are they allowed to use the Wasps brand as an amateur club?
Edit: for clarity I?m refer to the agreement with Wasps amateur club when they went professional.
-
Holland has bought the name in effect. I?m not certain but I guess he can do what he wants with it.
-
Irish into administration got there before the Falcons.
-
Irish into administration got there before the Falcons.
Is there a link to this?
-
Irish into administration got there before the Falcons.
Is there a link to this?
Can't find it anywhere - so??
-
Talk Sport are reporting that LI have gone into administration. Very sad if true.
-
Please - let this be a mistake. At this rate there could be a Premiership 'B' Group forming, and the RFU can then achieve it's (presumably) hoped-for Premiership 'A' Group of 4 permanent nailed-on teams. I hope the RFU are happy 'cos I'm definitely not.
-
Sad news if true about LI, and given what's been rumoured it doesn't sound good.
Back to the topic at hand. I presume there's a set time for the Atlas deal to be completed. The opening article doesn't mention it but from my limited experience of such complicated deals that have to be complete by a set date they usually include a time of mid morning or midday so that whatever needs to be completed can be doe that day.
-
The London Irish story seems to be a rumour that they couldn't pay their staff this month, with various media speculation that they have/will be then going into administration.
Nothing more than that at the moment.
-
From The Times
London Irish are at risk of following Worcester Warriors and Wasps into financial meltdown after players and staff failed to receive their salaries for the month of April.
The American consortium involved in takeover talks with the Gallagher Premiership club informed all employees in a meeting on Friday that their money would not be paid on time.
A follow-up email was sent on Sunday with assurances that confirmation of payment would be received by Monday evening in the UK, once the banks in the United States had opened for business.
Worcester?s players and staff faced months of broken promises over unpaid salaries and potential takeovers before the club collapsed. They are all still out of pocket and some have found employment hard to come by.
The new owners of Worcester have refused to revive the club in the Championship because that would require them to pay back all rugby creditors, which would cost up to ?8 million.
Wasps are due to return in the Championship next season, having passed the RFU?s initial criteria, but the club are understood to have major funding issues. They have no coaches, no players and no home ground.
London Irish do not have the tax office chasing them, which is ultimately what triggered the collapse of Worcester and Wasps, but they are deemed to be at ?high risk? because of their debt and low annual turnover.
Although the club has a training facility that has been used by NFL teams and international rugby teams, London Irish does not own a stadium that can be used to generate non-matchday income.
There were fears last month that London Irish would be unable to pay their players but the American consortium covered the March payroll, but it has failed to do so this time.
London Irish refused to comment over the weekend. A spokesperson for the consortium deflected questions back to the club, even though the players and staff were addressed by a representative of the American investors on Friday. They were told that a deal is close.
Premiership Rugby and the RFU have been approached for comment.
The financial crisis across the league has deepened in recent years. According to a parliamentary investigation, Premiership clubs each lose, on average, ?4 million a year. Premiership Rugby failed to secure an uplift on its broadcasting deal with BT Sport. Every club is now saddled with government debt of between ?10-15 million after taking out loans to stay afloat during the pandemic.
Premiership Rugby is working to relaunch the league in 2024 as a ten-team competition, removing clashes with Test matches to ensure the England players are available more often.
Promotion and relegation is due to return at the end of next season, via a play-off between the bottom side in the Premiership and the Championship winners, but that is now highly unlikely to happen.
There is an acceptance around the Premiership that something radical needs to change if the league is to attract more investment and avoid sinking further into the financial abyss.
-
The London Irish story seems to be a rumour that they couldn't pay their staff this month, with various media speculation that they have/will be then going into administration.
Nothing more than that at the moment.
It is no longer a rumour about the pay. They didn't get paid, despite assurances. An American 'backer' was supposed to have paid the wages as part of a takeoever deal, and that deal was supposed to have been concluded by April 30 (no sign that it has). But, to be able to take over a PRL club, the RFU have got to approve the new owners, and the RFU will no longer be 'rushed' in to rubber stamping any deal. Irish have a home game against Exeter this weekend. If I was the stadium owner, I would be asking for payment up front, the same with any service providers (like the medical staff, without whom the game cannot proceed). The players have yet to be paid. Will they play?
-
It is no longer a rumour about the pay.
Fair enough, hadnt seen the full Times article.
The players have yet to be paid. Will they play?
And are the still insured?
-
London Irish do not have the tax office chasing them
Did LI take one of the government's covid loans? Isn't that what caused the tax man to come knocking at both Worcester and Wasps?
-
Thanks Nelly; very clear and concise.
-
I don't buy the "waiting for the banks to open" excuse. Big multinationals don't use cheques that need a retail branch to be open, they could move the money if they wanted and had it to hand.
-
I don't buy the "waiting for the banks to open" excuse. Big multinationals don't use cheques that need a retail branch to be open, they could move the money if they wanted and had it to hand.
This
-
Update from Chris Foy: Latest on London Irish. Players called to a meeting at 8.30 this morning where they were told by club CEO + Howard Thomas of Redstrike Group (prospective buyers) that money had been transferred for wages, which would be paid later today.
-
So it sounds like the potential new owners have paid 2 months wages before they actually own the club.
Wonder what would happen if they are not judged proper owners by the RFU....?
-
Please - let this be a mistake. At this rate there could be a Premiership 'B' Group forming, and the RFU can then achieve it's (presumably) hoped-for Premiership 'A' Group of 4 permanent nailed-on teams. I hope the RFU are happy 'cos I'm definitely not.
I don't understand how the RFU can be blamed for this. If LI have gone bust it's because their expenses are greater than their income, their greatest expense being the salary cap which has been set exclusively by PRL.
Also I have heard various premiership voices call for a reduced league but not the RFU. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
-
Egret - I wasn't referring to the financial problems of LI. If the players have been paid then that's very good news. What does worry me is the decreasing number of Clubs in the Premiership.
-
Please - let this be a mistake. At this rate there could be a Premiership 'B' Group forming, and the RFU can then achieve it's (presumably) hoped-for Premiership 'A' Group of 4 permanent nailed-on teams. I hope the RFU are happy 'cos I'm definitely not.
I don't understand how the RFU can be blamed for this. If LI have gone bust it's because their expenses are greater than their income, their greatest expense being the salary cap which has been set exclusively by PRL.
Also I have heard various premiership voices call for a reduced league but not the RFU. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
It was a while ago:
Sweeney favours proposals to introduce a 10-team Premiership for the 2024-25 season, when the next Professional Game Agreement comes into force, to ensure fewer Premiership matches clash with the international windows while central contracts would alleviate club costs and give the RFU far better access and control over its players ? something Eddie Jones has consistently wanted more of throughout his tenure.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/16/bill-sweeney-10-team-premiership-rugby-union-central-contracts
-
10 team league ? playing the same boring teams, with the same boring rugby, with the same boring results.
More likely than not, the law of unintended consequences will result in more traditional fans being lost to the game than new fans are attracted.
-
Plus 1, big time.
-
The WW silence continues.
-
[quote author=Bloke in North Dorset link=topic=5994.msg104567#msg104567 date=1683031158
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/16/bill-sweeney-10-team-premiership-rugby-union-central-contracts[/quote]
[/quote]
Thanks BiND, although to be fair to Sweeney, he was hardly leading the charge for a 10 team league, that was introduced by Baxter and supported by other Premier voices.
My reading is that as part of the PGA negotiation he/the RFU was prepared to agree to 4adical reform of the Premier League and if PRL wanted a 10 team league, he wouldn't let that be a deal breaker.
-
It?s all fairly sad. Whether wages have now been paid or not the red flags have been raised. LI operate a ground share which should be fairly sustainable but there?s just not enough money in the game. The equation at the moment is stark : No benefactor = no way to survive.
-
From Chris Foy - Latest on Worcester: Unconfirmed at this stage but hearing that Atlas are likely to complete their take-over today. Administrator must believe in them but RFU unconvinced. If it does happen, where that leaves Warriors (and Wasps and Stourbridge too) is anyone?s guess.
-
Warriors message board saying Atlas sale has completed.
-
Bbc -
Worcester Warriors: Atlas Group complete takeover of former Premiership club - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65471172
Last para mentions Wasps
-
I can't imagine there are a huge number of Americans looking to invest in Premiership Rugby clubs.
Atlas have a bid accepted then it goes quiet with the money, from America, held up around the same time American money starts paying the wage bill at London Irish, then the money dries up just as Atlas find the cash to complete the deal.
Can't help but wonder if the source is the same.
-
Whether Warriors fans like it or not, it would seem the Atlas sale has gone through.
This means that Warriors will not be in the Champ next season.
I can't see either Stourbridge or the RFU agreeing to that proposed takeover/merger.
So Sixways would be available for other uses....
Lets see if this being resolved kick starts some Wasps news over the next week....
-
https://www.cityam.com/exclusive-wasps-apply-to-rfu-to-use-worcester-warriors-sixways-stadium/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-
Doesn't seem to be many facts in that article.
If Wasps were hoping to move to Sixways you would have expected them to have spoken to the RFU while waiting for the sale to Atlas to go ahead & got a provisional yes or no.
If, (big IF) this is a report of an official request then you would expect Wasps to already know the answer to the question...
-
https://twitter.com/matthardyjourno/status/1653780011302674436?s=46&t=uqL3_JPW8PntNGwES-NjpA
RFU CONFIRM: "Wasps have applied to use Sixways Stadium, the RFU will consult with local stakeholders"
-
https://twitter.com/matthardyjourno/status/1653780011302674436?s=46&t=uqL3_JPW8PntNGwES-NjpA
RFU CONFIRM: "Wasps have applied to use Sixways Stadium, the RFU will consult with local stakeholders"
Ooh that's a surprise 😮
-
So the RFU will consider it by the end of May - of course speed kills.
-
Crossed fingers. If this (big 'if this') goes ahead then Wasps might just survive, I think. Personally I would be happier in the Championship than the Premiership. IF it all goes ahead. There are many pot holes to navigate yet.
-
I'm doubtless being thick - but if we've asked about 6ways, presumably we have an overall "package" that would fit with playing in the Championship. Players, coaching, support staff
Otherwise, we've got nothing?
-
Doesn't seem to be many facts in that article.
If Wasps were hoping to move to Sixways you would have expected them to have spoken to the RFU while waiting for the sale to Atlas to go ahead & got a provisional yes or no.
If, (big IF) this is a report of an official request then you would expect Wasps to already know the answer to the question...
As always with these things there?s a big difference between informal discussions and formal application, because that?s when the lawyers and politically motivated get involved. Think about applying to build an extension or or even new house. You talk to the local planners and they tell you wants needed and give a nod of approval. The. You apply and the planning committee gets objections from people you?ve never even heard of.
-
I'm doubtless being thick - but if we've asked about 6ways, presumably we have an overall "package" that would fit with playing in the Championship. Players, coaching, support staff
Otherwise, we've got nothing?
They've asked for next season so you have to assume so.
-
I'm doubtless being thick - but if we've asked about 6ways, presumably we have an overall "package" that would fit with playing in the Championship. Players, coaching, support staff
Otherwise, we've got nothing?
They've asked for next season so you have to assume so.
I'll keep crossing random limbs......
-
https://twitter.com/matthardyjourno/status/1653780011302674436?s=46&t=uqL3_JPW8PntNGwES-NjpA
RFU CONFIRM: "Wasps have applied to use Sixways Stadium, the RFU will consult with local stakeholders"
For me, I would want the RFU to say 'No.' It doesn't sit well with me.
-
Playing at Worcester is the best option in a bad situation. An established quality rugby facility is available, make the most of it. Yes it sucks that Atlas have control of the place, but it's still better than playing at a non league football ground, in every other aspect. If we're still there in 5 years time, and not at our own place (Oxfordshire M40 corridor, definitely not London because thays as likely and feasible as the CBS now) then we're up finance creek again with only a teaspoon.
-
I think firstly you have to feel for the Worcester fans. This is a horrible situation for them. Looking pragmatically you can sort of think ?why not? but it will feel odd. Bottom line - if it means we survive I?ll take it.
-
I think firstly you have to feel for the Worcester fans. This is a horrible situation for them. Looking pragmatically you can sort of think ?why not? but it will feel odd. Bottom line - if it means we survive I?ll take it.
Looking at it pragmatically, the Ricoh was also, why not?
Wasps were not wanted there. They are not wanted in Worcester. The Ricoh was too expensive to run, and Wasps rarely filled it. It lost money every week pretty much.
Unless Atlas are offering Sixways at a silly low price, like below cost, Wasps will again lose money every week they play there.
As far away as the Ricoh was from London, Sixways is further.
I am far from convinced the RFU will agree to moving so far from Coventry, but they might. After all, they were OK with the other moves Wasps made. Allegedly, the RFU will not let Wasps know until the end of May. The cup competition starts in September. That's just 3 months to get a low salary cost squad and staff together. There is no way players will have time to move home. Indeed, on much lower wages, can they afford it? I seriously wonder where players of sufficient calibre are going to be found at low wages. Sure, the other Championship clubs have such players. Some on loan from PRL clubs, but they have built their current squads over a decade and more. What are Wasps going to do? Recruit out of contract Premiership Academy players and discarded Premiership players? None of this adds up for me.
I am very far from convinced that Wasps have the finance in place.
-
If it's between Wasps playing at Sixways or no Wasps at all, I know what my preference would be. It's been reported recently that at 100 Premiership players are without a contract for next season (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/apr/25/life-after-rugby-union-premiership-players-face-demanding-transition) so I don't think there is a shortage of available players by any means. Players don't necessarily need to live locally straight away. Lee was saying he has a 3 hour commute to the Scarlets, not something that is sustainable in the long run but it is manageable for the short term. It won't be straightforward and it's not ideal but I for one am hoping, perhaps over-optimistically, that this will materialise in to Wasps being in the Championship. I don't think those behind the scenes would still be putting in the effort at this point in the year if they didn't think it would be possible to have a team on the field come September.
-
I?m with you COYW15. I take your points NWW but if it?s Wasps or no Wasps I?ll take Wasps.
-
Totally agree Shugs.
-
It?s hard to imagine being in someone?s shoes and I haven?t talked to my mate yet, but I?d like to think that if the roles were reversed I?d be wishing Worcester well. It isn?t our fault Worcester are in the predicament they are in and at least if we do play they for a while it means they?ll still have a stadium if and when they get back to top flight rugby.
-
EXCLUSIVE: RFU confirm Wasps have applied to play at Sixways https://mol.im/a/12045215 via https://dailym.ai/android
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/05/03/wasps-await-rfu-decision-on-sixways-move/
-
I cant see the issue. Wasps aren't trying to buy sixways they would be a tenant. There is a facility with a new owner who wants some income and Wasps are a team who potentially need somewhere to play. I believe from the report there will be at least two other 'clubs' playing there as well and presumably Worcester will play there in some form or other. Looks like sound business for the new owners of sixways.
Is it the right facility for new Wasps, well is it for us to say. Leasing somewhere is temporary so provided the funds are there why not. Is it a precursor to a Worcester Wasps club then I hope not. The two clubs had different philosophies and backgrounds and would not make a good fit in my view. There is no suggestion this is the long term plan.
Sixways is a premiership standard ground. This would appeal to sponsors and corporate hospitality income streams far better than a non league footie ground. Crowds will be different to CBSA, likely fewer families and an attendance for most games of what, maybe 1500/2000. Wasps have to start somewhere if there is to be a club at all. The concept of being back in the Premiership in two years is just nonsense. The new club have to build again from the ground up and it will be ten years maybe more in my view, without a sugar daddy, to even be close to moving up.
Sixways with just the main stand in use seems as good as any place to start.
-
Not ideal (I would much prefer wasps were playing somewhere along the M40 corridor) but I can see that Sixways is probably the cheapest option.
Atlas will be desperate to get paying tenants, for income and to try to live up to their promises.
For Wasps it is a premiership quality stadium with all the facilities where all you need to do is turn up with kit, whereas a groundshare with a football team like Solihull would require investment in the pitch and facilities.
-
Does anyone know who "Local Stakeholders" would be?
Is that local clubs, Worcester RFC for example?
Other sports? Councils?
-
Laterontoday, you spoke a book. I too had been thinking that Wasps is not trying to buy 6ways but simply to rent it for a couple of years. We wouldn't be trying to take it over completely, for ever, for heaven's sake. 6ways would not belong to Wasps, despite comments involving cuckoos by certain non-Wasp posters. And there could always be someone much worse than us considering renting 6waya, or indeed even worse .......... no one at all.
-
Warriors supporters are going into meltdown on their board.
Wasps getting blamed for engaging with Atlas & "facilitating" Warriors demise.
Some very angry people looking for someone to blame.
Can't see many Warriors fans turning up to support Wasps if they play there, but then if the boot was on the other foot, I wouldn't either.
Thinking more about the "Local Stakeholders", you would expect the RFU to ask Worcester RFC (who are right next door) what they think about another "pro" club turning up on their door step. Would they be happy? No idea what the relationship was like with Warriors, anyone have any info?
-
Things looking a bit murky at WW. Im picked up the detail below from the WW forum.
What's Christopher Hollands property company doing taking out a debenture against Worcester Atlas earlier this week. Is he the funding that allowed Atlas to secure their deal? If so this is starting to smell as a stitch up of a merger of the two names sometime in the future.
I can deal with Wasps leasing the pitch at Sixways for a short period along with the WW Ladies team but this as a step to merging the club names, no thanks.
Of course it could all be an innocent way of leasing a pitch without the new club actually paying anything for it and thus reducing running costs and the lessening the need for funding. Genius or a bit murky no sure.
-
So it seems as though Chris Holland, via his company Loxwood Holdings Limited, has secured a loan to Atlas - is this correct? I'm out of my depth here!
-
Thinking more about the "Local Stakeholders", you would expect the RFU to ask Worcester RFC (who are right next door) what they think about another "pro" club turning up on their door step. Would they be happy? No idea what the relationship was like with Warriors, anyone have any info?
Last summer, before the season started, we were talking to a couple of Worcester RFC supporters and they were extremely anti-Worriors, in the same way that some Coventry RFC supporters were/are extremely anti-Wasps. I can imagine how apoplectic they will be if Wasps do turn-up in Worcester, even if it is only for a couple of years (which I doubt)
-
How many fans would be needed for Sixways to wash its face, let alone generate positive cashflow?
Its owners might be better off mothballing the stadium than making a loss trying to operate it for matches.
-
So it seems as though Chris Holland, via his company Loxwood Holdings Limited, has secured a loan to Atlas - is this correct? I'm out of my depth here!
It appears so: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14324369/charges/LF3YBj-lS8zKxzc2A37K5nKrgec
I get it from his perspective. He's already spent a sizable amount on Wasps and faced it all going to waste if he couldn't put forward a stadium to play in to the RFU by the last week of May. Sixways was the only realistic option and for that to materialise he needed Atlas to buy it. So loan them the money and if they can't pay it back he gets a Premiership Rugby standard stadium.
-
If that is correct & Chris Holland has enabled the Atlas buyout to go ahead, that is NOT the same as just renting a stadium that would have remained empty otherwise.
Personally I am not comfortable with that at all.
-
Not good.
-
I don't like the feel of this one little bit.
-
I don't like the feel of this one little bit.
Me neither, already felt like a cuckoo in 6ways but this feels like a very clever business decision but morally wrong.
I am assuming that Hollands gone upfront cash for O'Toole and Atlas to make the purchase and either agreed a reduced rent/larger % of revenue from the stadium which increases funding at Wasps, therefore funding new stadium he has spoken of.
However, if Holland funds Atlas, with their major asset the stadium and surrounding facilities, if Atlas default or miss consecutive payments, in theory Holland can repossess the stadium?
This again feels very uncomfortable for me
-
I don't like the feel of this one little bit.
+1
-
This feels every bit like Wasps acquiring Sixways by the back door.
As I said in an earlier post, this feels like the Ricoh saga all over. Behind closed doors, ANYTHING could have been done, said and agreed.
For example, Holland could have persuaded Atlas to buy WW from Begbies, with the understanding that they deliberately let WW go under, all under the guise of Wasps acquiring a stadium by the back door.
If I was a WW fan, that is exactly what I would see. Wasps fiddling with the bids so that the Diamond consortium could not buy the club, with Atlas the winner, and for Atlas to then kill WW and take a loan off Wasps, fail to keep up the payments, and Wasps get the stadium for cheap.
That doesn't have to be true, but is has the ring of truth, and WW fans will think it is. And so the Ricoh Saga starts again, but this time our haters will be more vocal and have good reason. Can't see this ending well. Not sure how Holland thought this would turn out well.
-
How directly involved is Holland in new Wasps? Is he a director / owner? Or is he just a chap who owns a training ground Wasps rent and now owns an interest in a stadium Wasps might rent?
-
He owns all that Wasps currently is.
Let's look at this in a positive way. Holland/Wasps have control over Atlas not screwing us over. If they do he can sell the stadium on to Dimes or some other properly interested rugby party.
-
If that is correct & Chris Holland has enabled the Atlas buyout to go ahead, that is NOT the same as just renting a stadium that would have remained empty otherwise.
Personally I am not comfortable with that at all.
Spot on. The whole thing stinks and sounds like a total stitch up.
I'd be seething if I was a Warriors fan, and its no surprise that the general sympathy across the sportnetwork messages boards is with them, while sympathy for wasps is withering (if it was even there at all).
If Holland has actively helped Atlas buy the club so Wasps can get a free stadium (a sale to Atlas which has effectively killed Worcester) then I hope Holland is prepared for new Wasps to become quickly the most hated club around.
-
Are there any rules in having a financial interest in 2 clubs?
-
Are there any rules in having a financial interest in 2 clubs?
Well, as Warriors no longer exist ... if they do, it is in the bottom most league, and I do not think dual interests of that nature are barred.
-
Things are getting very heated over on the Warriors forum. They are all slowly coming to the (obvious) conclusion that I did. This is all a very big stitch up.
Here is the conspiracy theory.
Warriors went under. Only their owners to blame for that. Fair does.
Wasps (Holland and Richardson) see a way out of the huge mountain of debt Wasps are in. Let Wasps fail, buy Sixways from their administrator, Wasps go down a league, and come away with massively reduced debt and a more rugby centric, easier to operate ground.
Richardson sells his holdings in the EPIC to Holland, to appear to give Holland control and give him clean hands.
Wasps fail. Hollands buys the brand, doesn't bother to acquire the CBS Arena.
Holland helps Atlas buy Sixways and Atlas let Warriors die by officially refusing to pay rugby creditors (more of that later).
Just how much will the rugby creditors of Wasps amount to? Players wages, yes, but only insofar as they are not mitigated by the players getting work elsewhere (or even retiring and taking work in another trade).
Rugby creditors are not defined. Exactly how much of the player wages would be considered a rugby debt? Not a lot is my guess. Some ex players may even have been offered a contract at Wasps Mark II, on the condition that they do not make a claim. My guess is that Wasps have agreed to pay rugby creditors, with no intention of paying a penny unless forced to. Once they start playing in the Championship, they will invite claims to be made from rugby creditors, and refuse every claim, with each claim going to arbitration ...
At some point, Atlas will conveniently stop paying Holland, and he will foreclose, and take the land and stadium. Then what? Here's where it gets really smelly. Before they default, Atlas will start the process to get a change of use for (and demolition of) Sixways. I have little doubt Holland and Atlas already have a buyer lined up. Atlas will lose the stadium to Holland, just as the the deals and permissions are getting sorted.
You see, arguably, there is no longer a community need for Sixways, as Warriors no longer exists, and so don't need it. Ah, you say, aren't Wasps playing there? Not for long say Wasps, we have our own stadium back much nearer our fanbase and natural home ground (wherever the heck that is).
So, the potential developers of Sixways fund the building of the real Wasps Mark II stadium, at no overall cost to Holland or Wasps. Who the heck HAS funded it then? All the creditors of Wasps and Warriors, and the good folks of Worcester, who lose use of the ground.
-
So this is the end of Wasps?
-
Bigad,
There's a difference between having an interest in a club (ie owning shares in it) and holding a debenture against assets of that club. Chris Holland does not, for example, have any voting rights in Atlas Worcester's dealings.
The way I see this is that Atlas could not raise the finance from USA, at least in part because the RFU said they couldn't carry out their "right and proper" persons checks. 6ways in the meantime was largely gathering dust. It's a wasted rugby resource.
CH has, it seems, lent (some of) the money to Atlas to buy from the administrator and that has enabled us to rent the otherwise disused 6ways.
I see nothing "morally wrong" or distasteful in this whatsoever.
There is no evidence I've seen that Wasps persuaded Atlas to let WW go under - as mentioned above. There is also no evidence that Wasps are intent on buying 6ways by the back door. If they wanted to buy it, they could have done the deal with Begbies directly.
All I see in this is that we've got some sort of proposed rental deal (yet to be approved by RFU) and the benefit of a debenture over a loan made. All the conspiracy theory being banded around is just ill-founded nonsense in my book. (Sorry NWW - I just don't agree)
I say thank you to Chris Holland and the Legends for rescuing us and giving us the chance of playing in the Championship in September.
-
So this is the end of Wasps?
No. The end of Warriors, for sure. But, it might be that Wasps are more likely to survive, living in part off the blood of the dying Warriors. Maybe a team name change from Wasps to Vampires?
In fact, if what I (very tongue in cheek) suggest might be what has happened, and might be what will happen, is actually (sort of) true, it would make the survival of Wasps more likely. Would, could, Warriors have survived? Maybe, but we will never know.
Would you be 'happy' supporting Wasps if you knew for sure that what I suggested might have been, was in fact true?
I must say it does not sit well with me. Could I go into plausible deniability mode and say, we don't know for sure ...
-
If, and this is a massive IF, all the conjecture is true (I fully agree its entirely possible) then I cannot see many die hard Wasps fans feeling they can be part of it.
I cannot also see many Wasps legends feeling that they can be either.
The much heralded management layer with experience in big business should also be looking to get out.
I am genuinely not sure I could support a club that had gone about their business in this way.
All that said, I will wait & see what happens between now & September. Its very easy to make 2+2 equal more than 4 when all the facts are not clear.
-
The problem I see with the conspiracy theory is that it relied on Derek to swallow a massive loss in all this. If anyone was motivated to act in this way it was him and he doesn?t appear to be involved.
-
Are there any rules in having a financial interest in 2 clubs?
Well, as Warriors no longer exist ... if they do, it is in the bottom most league, and I do not think dual interests of that nature are barred.
Thanks.
-
The problem I see with the conspiracy theory is that it relied on Derek to swallow a massive loss in all this. If anyone was motivated to act in this way it was him and he doesn?t appear to be involved.
Exactly. I can categorically say Derek is not behind this.
When he sold the remainder of the training centre to Chris Holland it was to get liquid cash to pay the bond debt and keep the club going. He absolutely would not have definitely killed one club and possibly two in order to maybe make some money. He had bigger plans that that.
The story will come out soon enough.
-
The problem I see with the conspiracy theory is that it relied on Derek to swallow a massive loss in all this. If anyone was motivated to act in this way it was him and he doesn?t appear to be involved.
Derek had already lost all that money. I have little doubt Wasps was going down regardless of what happened at Warriors. Purely conjecture, but one might think that, with Warriors going under, it gave the Wasps board an excuse, #metoo as it were.
I have a feeling that, should Irish also go under (I hope they don't), then all this current brinkmanship will have been theatre to say, we did all we could, but, like Wasps and Warriors ... I think Irish are hanging on to get the season done, and so fall in next season and be given a year to resurrect themselves, rather than a few months. It does make you wonder whether Falcons will follow? Summer must be a terrible strain on cashflow, once there are no more gate receipts, but with wages still going out? My hitlist at the start of the season was Warriors, Wasps, Irish, Falcons and Tigers. 13 becomes 8.
-
For what it's worth, I am afeared that you could be correct NWW. I still absolve Derek from any shady dealing at all. If the conspiracy theory is correct I personally could not support my beloved Wasps in the New Wasps form.
-
Confirmation -
Wasps owner Chris Holland makes loan to Worcester to secure Sixways lease
By Ged ScottBBC Sport
Last updated on
14 minutes ago14 minutes ago.From the section Rugby Union
Wasps owner Chris Holland has made a loan to new Worcester Warriors owners Atlas to help secure a lease to play Championship rugby at Sixways from next season onwards.
Warriors have taken out a debenture through Companies House from Loxwood Holdings Limited, of whom Holland is a director along with two family members.
The agreement is secured against land and the stadium at Sixways.
Wasps confirmed in a statement that playing at Sixways is an option.
But the club insists it has "no interest at all in the property other than a lease to play first-class rugby in the stadium."
"Our loan to Atlas, secured by the debenture, is simply a means of securing our agreement to enter a three-year lease for Sixways," the statement added.
Warriors co-owner Jim O'Toole told BBC Hereford & Worcester: "It is a security of tenure deposit for Wasps to play at Sixways".
Atlas Group complete takeover of Worcester Warriors
Worcester owners say agreement struck for Wasps to play at Sixways
Wasps have lain dormant since being relegated from the Premiership in late October, other than to be told that they had satisfied Rugby Football Union financial checks and were free to return to playing professionally in the Championship next season.
They already have RFU permission to use Solihull Moors' home at Damson Park.
There has also been the option of using the training ground at Henley-in-Arden, but their application for Sixways now suggests that they will be heading to Worcester, as Atlas first claimed at their public meeting in Feburary.
A decision on the proposed move will be made when the RFU meets at the end of the month.
"It's just Sixways they've applied for," said an RFU spokesman. "At the moment the permission is for Solihull Moors."
It is understood Wasps will move the rugby operation to Sixways four days a week - both for training and playing home games there - and find another use for their Henley site.
As for Worcester, to have any chance of being allowed to operate in the Championship again, the new owners would have to commit to paying off rugby debts and also pass the RFU's fit and proper persons test.
As yet, the RFU says that Atlas have not committed to pay off debts or passed the fit and proper test.
The governing body says it is up to the Worcester owners to approach them with details of how they propose to participate in rugby.
-
In all of this there is an unanswered question that is nagging at me.
If our new owners have the money available to secure a nice Premiership standard stadium for another company, why is it that we don't currently have a squad, or coaches?
We've been lead to believe it was due to lack of funds. Clearly that isn't the case...
-
Would you sign up with a club that's just a name at the moment?
I think there could well be a seismic shift in the game this summer, financially. A smaller Prem could force the hands of the broadcasters, and there are too many players chasing too little money at that level.
-
Would you sign up with a club that's just a name at the moment?
I think there could well be a seismic shift in the game this summer, financially. A smaller Prem could force the hands of the broadcasters, and there are too many players chasing too little money at that level.
It would likely mean players having to accept less money, and players staying on at clubs until the clubs did not want them.
In a way, look at Premiership footie. How many English born players are actually playing each week? Very few. Which, in turn, means becoming a professional footie player should be less attractive to youngsters, but it is not. Our national footie team is probably poorer for that lack of representation at Premiership level, but lower league footie, where budgets are realistic, is probably the better for it. It is more like a real sport (not ruined by big money).
The same may well apply in rugby. With the Premiership shrinking, lower leagues may end up being better.
As for that statement. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? I doubt any of us will know the truth, until Atlas pay back the loan in full, or Wasps move on. But, whatever Holland may hope, the Warriors fans are going to paint him, and Wasps, as the villains. And Wasps will be playing in their back yard.
-
Would you sign up with a club that's just a name at the moment?
No, but I might sign for a club that had a glorious history, a state of the art training centre, full agreement from the RFU to play at a passable ground and ambitious plans to own a much better one.
-
Would you sign up with a club that's just a name at the moment?
No, but I might sign for a club that had a glorious history, a state of the art training centre, full agreement from the RFU to play at a passable ground and ambitious plans to own a much better one.
+1 - also if the number of quality players being released at the moment is correct (100+ in the PRL only) then a ream will not be too much of a problem BUT getting it together will be.
-
So, we are asked to understand that the debenture is, in effect, an advance payment of rent, for three years. So, what, 40 games? Plus, we can use the ground to train. Maybe for other games as well (like the academy, maybe the ladies team?). What would Wasps use Henley for then? It has a big farmhouse and converted barn buildings that has been (or was being) converted to apartments for academy players to live in.
-
In all of this there is an unanswered question that is nagging at me.
If our new owners have the money available to secure a nice Premiership standard stadium for another company, why is it that we don't currently have a squad, or coaches?
We've been lead to believe it was due to lack of funds. Clearly that isn't the case...
My guess - spinning plates. I'm not convinced Solihull was ever a real option or at least a preferred option, as NWW kept pointing out that ground was needed for a factory extension or similar.
Now they have a ground, once the RFU gives the go ahead, they can confirm to investors its not smoke and mirrors and they'll release funds so that the building of a squad and all the backroom staff can start.
-
What the hell are they going to be using Henley for?
It's getting more bizarre by the day.
-
The conspiracy theory is far too intricate and bits of the timeline just don?t fit. I suspect it?s far simpler. Holland has seen how Atlas operate and the debenture secures Wasps three year lease. Remember, the RFU have not approved this yet either. What?s more intriguing to be honest is the intention to use Henley for ?other use?. That?s strange unless he?s going to total it.
-
So, we are asked to understand that the debenture is, in effect, an advance payment of rent, for three years. So, what, 40 games? Plus, we can use the ground to train. Maybe for other games as well (like the academy, maybe the ladies team?). What would Wasps use Henley for then? It has a big farmhouse and converted barn buildings that has been (or was being) converted to apartments for academy players to live in.
I'm pretty sure the academy house isn't part of the EPIC.
-
Wonder if Birmingham City might be staying longer.
-
NWW it's very easy to see conspiracy everywhere if you want to.
But it's also just as easy to see a more straight forward option.
Atlas maybe wanted to resurrect warriors, but the rfu denied them when they wouldn't pay rugby creditors.
Atlas want the stadium and a token ownership of the club.
Financial backers get cold feet when they no longer have a tier2 club.
At the same time, wasps are in the deep shit. Every option has looked like failing.
Atlas aren't going to get rfu backing.
Chris Holland has to decide to either let wasps fall with no ground, or make the best of the situation by loaning money to atlas to get the stadium deal done, and maybe negotiate better rates for wasps at the same time.
Im not sure i like the idea of this new wasps, and I like the idea of playing at sixways even less (feels like jumping in a grave).
But that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy at every turn
-
NWW it's very easy to see conspiracy everywhere if you want to.
But it's also just as easy to see a more straight forward option.
Atlas maybe wanted to resurrect warriors, but the rfu denied them when they wouldn't pay rugby creditors.
Atlas want the stadium and a token ownership of the club.
Financial backers get cold feet when they no longer have a tier2 club.
At the same time, wasps are in the deep shit. Every option has looked like failing.
Atlas aren't going to get rfu backing.
Chris Holland has to decide to either let wasps fall with no ground, or make the best of the situation by loaning money to atlas to get the stadium deal done, and maybe negotiate better rates for wasps at the same time.
Im not sure i like the idea of this new wasps, and I like the idea of playing at sixways even less (feels like jumping in a grave).
But that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy at every turn
I agree. But, you are never likely to be in the majority in that. Excluding Wasps fans, if anyone has an interest in Sixways, Worcester rugby and the wider rugby family, they are far more likely to believe the worst. That will make for a very sour atmosphere, especially in Worcester, but anywhere that Wasps go.
And, how can they train at Sixways? It has only one pitch, and no grass. Does it have weights and conditioning rooms, or do they have to go next door to David Lloyds?
-
I hope Pudsey can get his money back on his new lawnmower.
-
NWW it's very easy to see conspiracy everywhere if you want to.
But it's also just as easy to see a more straight forward option.
Atlas maybe wanted to resurrect warriors, but the rfu denied them when they wouldn't pay rugby creditors.
Atlas want the stadium and a token ownership of the club.
Financial backers get cold feet when they no longer have a tier2 club.
At the same time, wasps are in the deep shit. Every option has looked like failing.
Atlas aren't going to get rfu backing.
Chris Holland has to decide to either let wasps fall with no ground, or make the best of the situation by loaning money to atlas to get the stadium deal done, and maybe negotiate better rates for wasps at the same time.
Im not sure i like the idea of this new wasps, and I like the idea of playing at sixways even less (feels like jumping in a grave).
But that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy at every turn
I agree. But, you are never likely to be in the majority in that. Excluding Wasps fans, if anyone has an interest in Sixways, Worcester rugby and the wider rugby family, they are far more likely to believe the worst. That will make for a very sour atmosphere, especially in Worcester, but anywhere that Wasps go.
And, how can they train at Sixways? It has only one pitch, and no grass. Does it have weights and conditioning rooms, or do they have to go next door to David Lloyds?
I have to say NWW I?m not particularly worried what others think of us. It will inevitably be negative no matter what the actual facts are. I don?t buy the conspiracy view and subscribe to the view in wasps post above. There are loads of moving parts that we just don?t know enough about at the moment. Remember when we had no news?!?!
-
Agreed Shugs. Conspiracy theories can be left to the minds of other teams fans who have nothing else to do. I don't know Mr Holland and wouldn't know him if I bumped into him. But I do know Scrivs and have absolute trust in anything Wasps related that he backs. Considerably more than a certain other former number 8, who could afford and was able to dip his hand in many pies besides being a good times figure for professional Wasps group.
As for the EPIC, it's paying its way at the moment hosting Birmingham City. If they need to stay there longer or full time then by all means sell it to them. I don't know what state their fire damaged facilities are in now or if they can afford to fix them up or buy the EPIC. Same applies to Coventry City. We know they are always looking to sell their training ground for housing and they seem to be under more solid and reliable leadership now. So definitely a viable candidate to purchase the place.
If we are (pretty please) to build our own M40 Wasps Nest stadium then I'm sure that will come with appropriate facilities. Especially if we're to work alongside a lower tier club in any way, which I wouldn't bet against.
-
It's interesting (and pleasing) to read that we now seem to have a future being mapped out. The guys and gals working behind the scenes must have been working their socks off.
A lot still to do - not least of which is a massive PR offensive in Worcester!
From where we were heading a couple of weeks back, I am now much more confident that we will have a team to follow next season.
-
But I do know Scrivs and have absolute trust in anything Wasps related that he backs.
Nothing personal, but plenty on here said similar about the previous ownership, that didn't stop Wasps going bust.
-
NWW it's very easy to see conspiracy everywhere if you want to.
But it's also just as easy to see a more straight forward option.
Atlas maybe wanted to resurrect warriors, but the rfu denied them when they wouldn't pay rugby creditors.
Atlas want the stadium and a token ownership of the club.
Financial backers get cold feet when they no longer have a tier2 club.
At the same time, wasps are in the deep shit. Every option has looked like failing.
Atlas aren't going to get rfu backing.
Chris Holland has to decide to either let wasps fall with no ground, or make the best of the situation by loaning money to atlas to get the stadium deal done, and maybe negotiate better rates for wasps at the same time.
Im not sure i like the idea of this new wasps, and I like the idea of playing at sixways even less (feels like jumping in a grave).
But that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy at every turn
I agree. But, you are never likely to be in the majority in that. Excluding Wasps fans, if anyone has an interest in Sixways, Worcester rugby and the wider rugby family, they are far more likely to believe the worst. That will make for a very sour atmosphere, especially in Worcester, but anywhere that Wasps go.
And, how can they train at Sixways? It has only one pitch, and no grass. Does it have weights and conditioning rooms, or do they have to go next door to David Lloyds?
Some of the conspiracies are pathetic.
Lets look at the facts.
Atlas were the preferred buyer at Warriors, they were upfront that they wouldn't be pushing for Warriors to be in the Championship, basically as they didn't want to pay the rugby creditors. They then went looking for a lower league team to put rugby on at 6ways.
As preferred buyer they basically timed out every other bidder from getting Warriors back in the Championship.
Atlas claim they are in discussions with Wasps about playing at 6ways, something Wasps denied (in a very rare statement)
Atlas missed the 2nd May confirmation date.
Debenture raised against 6ways by Chris Hollands company on the 3rd May, to support a 3 year lease for Wasps.
Atlas purchase confirmation comes on the 3rd May.
Wasps was bought by Holland and they got everything in place with the RFU including agreement to play at Solihull Moors (this was confirmed by the RFU spokesperson yesterday)
Wasps have confirmed they have now requested to RFU to play at 6ways, but not approved by RFU yet.
What we are now assuming.
Atlas have struggled to get the funding together potentially the US backers having walked away.
Atlas having made a statement that they were in discussions with Wasps, which was denied, have approached Chris Holland on this again. Also potentially speak to Holland about funding as that is something his company does. Did Holland get preferential rates as Atlas had missed their funding and purchase dates?
Holland agrees an unknown sum via a debenture for the 3 years lease for wasps, is that basically the payment for the rent, secured on the property or actually a way for him to become a proper partner in the ownership? He says not, only for the lease.
What happens to the EPIC? Already in use by Birmingham City for this season, have they realised how good it is compared to their previous training ground and want to stay?
-
Wasps didn't deny being in talks with Atlas, they denied signing a ground share agreement.
-
Wasps didn't deny being in talks with Atlas, they denied signing a ground share agreement.
It's what I meant.
It's also obviously what happened as the RFU have confirmed that Wasps had applied based on playing at Solihull Moors.
-
So at the moment we have no agreement to play in the championship?
-
So at the moment we have no agreement to play in the championship?
My understanding is that Wasps do have agreement to play in the Champ, but only on condition that they have a home ground that the RFU approves of.
They may not approve of Six Ways, given potential local strength of feeling, but it sounds like Solihull Moors is a plan B
RFU approval, or otherwise due by the end of May apparently
-
So at the moment we have no agreement to play in the championship?
My understanding is that Wasps do have agreement to play in the Champ, but only on condition that they have a home ground that the RFU approves of.
They may not approve of Six Ways, given potential local strength of feeling, but it sounds like Solihull Moors is a plan B
RFU approval, or otherwise due by the end of May apparently
Thanks.
-
All well and good getting a stadium and a team good enough to get into the premiership but I?m pretty sure the RFU will stop us getting into the premiership, considering they would like 10 teams.
I think we are doing a lot of unethical things that will still not lead us to the promised land
-
Today's snippet -
Fresh doubts over the long-term future of Worcester amid ?1.15m loan https://mol.im/a/12052443 via https://dailym.ai/android
-
The article makes an assumption that if that loan is not paid back by then, the site would be sold for development.
That is probably not how it would work, and an alternative exists. The article says the loan enabled Atlas to meet an RFU deadline, without which their purchase would have fallen through, and they would have lost the half million deposit. They were between a rock and a hard place, and Holland knew that and was so 'nice' to make the loan to help them avoid that loss.
Really though, why did Holland make that loan? He must pretty much know that they can't repay him in 21 days. The article says to secure the right to play there for Wasps. Fair enough. But, to know that the loan would not get repaid and know therefore that even after making that loan they wouldn't be able to play there? He has Atlas over a big barrel right now.
21 days is long enough for the RFU to approve, or not, Wasps to play there. But short enough, and with that story having been hand fed to the Mail, that the RFU now thinks that they would lose to rugby what is a very nice stadium to become a shopping mall. Just how would that run in the press? It gives them little choice but to give Wasps the assent, and quickly.
Holland could then offer a longer term loan to pay off that short term loan, at pretty much whatever terms he wants. This is the tenant ruling the roost, and the landlord having no power at all. That simply does not happen in property development at all. Ever. Well, maybe sometimes. But, think about it, weird or what?
Holland cannot simply put the property on the market after 21 days. He would have to go to court, etc. So, not that soon. The loan could go in to default, where an administrator would be appointed, a sale quickly forced, at by now a really low value and Holland could acquire it (with backing from Wasps' new backers). And by low value, I mean really low, fire sale value. After all, who would want to buy a stadium and car park with little immediate potential for alternative use, and no potential tenant (Wasps being the only one in town)?
Looks like lost of twists and turns left to go. Did someone say a TV crew was following all this?
-
Where was his money when Wasps needed it?
I know that it probably wasn't an attractive option to throw 2 million at Wasps.
Even though we were told that Wasps had turned things around and we're caught out simply by timing, it seems Holland thought otherwise or else he could have bought us more time.
He obviously knew he'd never see a return
-
Where was his money when Wasps needed it?
I know that it probably wasn't an attractive option to throw 2 million at Wasps.
Even though we were told that Wasps had turned things around and we're caught out simply by timing, it seems Holland thought otherwise or else he could have bought us more time.
He obviously knew he'd never see a return
He did buy out EPIC. So maybe liquidity was sparse.
-
When it all went pear shaped, all the contractors for EPIC had not been paid. That was a LOT of money. AFAIK, they have all now been paid, somewhat late, by Holland. It may well be that he is not a man with oodles of liquid cash to splash about, but what he has been able to grub together, he has used to keep it together, whilst minimising the overall debt. Pouring money in to Wasps back then would have simply been pouring it down the drain. Most of us here know that, from the start the project was at best marginal, but it was what it was. Events tipped it past the point of no return, and from that point onwards it was a question of what could be rescued.
-
I never bought the 'it was the timing' guff. If it was just timing and a couple of million needed pdq then I would have expected Holland or Richardson to be able to secure that.
The whole project was going tits up, and the owners' platitudes to the players and staff were less than candid.
-
The true story will come out soon.
Machiavelli eat your heart out!
-
Re-reading all the postings on Here and on There I think (with reflection) that there is obviously so very much more to come out. We may well have a few surprises. So much to unravel. But please ..... MAKE IT SOON!
-
As far as the ?1m loan it seems like it?s a straightforward no risk loan to Atlas to ensure the RFU can see that a place to play rugby will exist and grant us permission to play there. It?s not enough leverage to get the whole site. The question is, if they?re out of cash what do Atlas do next?
-
As far as the ?1m loan it seems like it?s a straightforward no risk loan to Atlas to ensure the RFU can see that a place to play rugby will exist and grant us permission to play there. It?s not enough leverage to get the whole site. The question is, if they?re out of cash what do Atlas do next?
Sort of my point. What next for Atlas? My guess is that they will exit with their initial investment intact (was it 500k?), and soon. Which means someone will have to replace them.
-
Maybe our CEO Andy Scott might offer an opinion soon.
-
Would Steve Diamond make another appearance?
-
Would Steve Diamond make another appearance?
Not for a while as he is Edinburgh interim Head Coach until they get a Blair replacement. So committed to spend the summer up there.
-
Silly me.
-
Statement from Worcester Warriors Supporters Trust to RFU: https://www.wwst.co.uk/post/statement-to-rfu-8-5-23
A Statement from the Working Group of the Worcester Warriors Supporters Trust to the RFU: 08/05/2023
The RFU has confirmed that Wasps RFC has applied to play its home matches at Sixways Stadium, the home of Worcester Warriors, for the season 2023-24. We understand you wish to consult with local stakeholders. We believe that the supporters of Worcester Warriors are firmly in this category.
As you are aware, Atlas WWRFC has no plans for any Worcester Warriors Men?s team to play at Sixways for the foreseeable future. We believe that if Wasps become tenants at the stadium it would significantly impact, in a negative manner, the prospect of a phoenix Worcester team. Although most Warriors fans would choose not to support Wasps RFC, it is inevitable, over the proposed tenancy, that they would attract a local following. This would be to the detriment of pre-existing local rugby clubs, including any potential Warriors team. Wasps have no history in our local area; we believe they are intent on effectively poaching a ?ready-made? fan-base. There are other facilities closer to their previous ground(s); we do not believe they should be allowed to effectively set up a franchise in Worcestershire.
Additionally, from an administrative perspective, a Wasps? move to Sixways would be in direct contravention of RFU regulations 3.42(a), 5.71 and Regulation 5, Appendix 2, Section 15. We do not believe that Wasps have any right to be granted immunity from these regulations. They exist precisely for cases like this.
The Worcester Warriors Women?s team and Worcester Raiders FC play their home matches at Sixways. Currently the Warriors Women are the only elite level rugby team in Worcester and supporters would want them to remain as the primary tenant. We understand that both clubs have prospective deals to stay at Sixways. If Wasps also become tenants it would prevent a Worcester Warriors Men?s team playing at their own home ground due to fixture congestion. We see no other reason why Sixways could not host a phoenix Warriors team; Atlas WWRFC is hiding behind the idea that a lower league Warriors team would ?not be viable at Sixways?; we believe that they are simply trying to maximise their income from third party clubs and have no interest in reviving elite level men?s rugby under a Warriors banner. The supporters and the wider Worcester community have no desire for a cuckoo club to install itself at the Sixways Stadium or training facilities.
We also believe that the significant financial assistance provided by Loxwood Holdings Ltd., owned by Christopher Holland the owner of Wasps RFC, was the only reason that Atlas managed to complete their deal to buy Worcester Warriors. This is certainly not within the spirit of RFU regulation 4.2.1 and could be considered a breach.
Taking all these facts into consideration, we strongly urge the RFU to decline Wasps RFC?s application to play at Sixways Stadium. It would be unforgiveable if a club without any stadium or facilities, which has left behind vast debts and misery in Coventry, was given preferential treatment over our long-established club. The legacy of Cecil Duckworth, so important to everyone in Worcester, has been emasculated by both previous and current owners and we are determined that this must be reversed.
The working group are supportive of, and thankful for, the sentiment behind the RFU FAQ Document to ex-Warrior players released on 12th April. We agree with the regulations designed to prevent a club from effectively "buying a league position." We are against the Atlas plans to link up with Stourbridge RFC and hope the RFU do not permit them to progress.
I'll be honest: I find it hard to disagree with any of that. Very well stated.
-
I can't disagree with it either.
It's not a nice feeling to no longer be particularly proud to be a Wasp.
-
The description of Cecil Duckworth's legacy being "emasculated" smacks of a desperate attempt to make this submission seem more intellectual. Did no-one proof-read it for them and point out that really doesn't mean what they think it means? The substance of the piece is accurate but includes all the same key phrases e.g. poaching a fan base, franchise, cuckoo club that were thrown about for the Coventry move.
I think the submission would be much stronger if it acknowledged the state of play Worcester are in and would still be in should Wasps not get permission to play there. The Supporters Trust should simply state that Wasps playing in Worcester does not meet the regulations and should be declined. The Trust would then have to accept there is no possibility of a Worcester phoenix club since they have also failed to meet the regulations. That is the end of the debate. Wasps playing at Sixways or not no longer has any bearing on Worcester's failure to play Championship Rugby next season given who the club and assets were sold to, the deadlines for compliance having passed and the regulations (and Wasps application for deferral being denied) making clear it is next season or not at all.
I guess it made them feel better to write the letter making it Wasps' fault their club isn't coming back, but it really isn't. Their argument can stand on its own merits by citing the regulations we are failing to meet and demonstrating why we aren't. The rest weakens those solid foundations IMHO.
-
I agree with many of their points.
For me they let themselves down by the emotive language "cuckoo club" "franchise" "misery in Coventry" "preferential treatment" Stick to the facts!
They also ignore that its their new owners who don't want to attempt a Phoenix WWRFC, & not having Wasps as a tenant is unlikely to change that.
They also contradict themselves, if no one in the local area will support them, Wasps clearly arent going to buy a ready made fan base are they?
-
It comes across to me as very dog-in-the-manger.
If Wasps don't play there will there be enough rent from the women and Worcester FC to maintain the stadium on the off chance that a WW phoenix club comes along in a few years and is successful enough to maintain the ground and pay off any debts incurred keeping it going in the meantime?
I have a lot of sympathy with their plight and I think they'd have been better off arguing that the RFU include sunset clauses that ensure we move out in a timely manner and maybe that the women get priority.
If the deal with Atlas falls through the outcome could be another proposed out of town shopping mall or logistics distribution centre for them to spend their time venting their anger and raising objections against and the end of all hope of a top men's rugby team in the area.
-
I don't disagree with their statement even if some strong language.
however, it feels like the Trust haven't considered the financial and economic challenges of running such a stadium and facilities incl. staffing them for game days.
Saw stats saying that in 2020 it cost Swansea/Ospreys ?2.7m to keep Liberty Stadium running (21k capacity) and this is before the increased living costs of playing staff, non playing staff and services plus energy costs increase.
Now 6ways in 11k so lets say half, thats still 1.85m roughly plus additional costs mentioned.
I can't believe that this can be generated by those clubs whilst paying staff/non-staff included.
Moreover, there seems to be a belief that Dimes will now swoop in and save WW with a shining light but that just feels so unlikely. He has his new role in Edinburgh plus yes he's a very kind and open bloke but hes also a canny businessman who no doubt will have to plan something to protect against all the challenges the phoenix club face.
I just don't see how WWST feel that just the phoenix club, the womens team and raiders is financially viable (even with events etc)
-
I can't disagree with it either.
It's not a nice feeling to no longer be particularly proud to be a Wasp.
+1
I can, however, see a fudge coming down the line, which will be that Wasps receive 'temporary' permission to play there, subject to some provisos:
The first is that it be time limited. Given the lack of alternative 'suitable' stadia, New Wasps might argue the need for a 3, or maybe 4, year permission. A totally Phoenix WW team could not hope to be back in the Championship before then.
Second. New Wasps must build a new stadium, back within 'their' region (away from Worcester).
Third. New Wasps must retain and use Henley as their training ground, or build a new facility as part of their new build stadium.
Fourth. New Wasps must have submitted plans for the new stadium before the 24/25 season starts. This must include an actual planning application and HOA with the landowner.
I noticed on the Warriors board that the user Bumchin on that board is (he says he was secretary of Leamington FC - AKA Brakes - for 16 years). I think he was the match secretary who recently resigned, who was Richard Edy, of Redditch (according to LinkedIn). The same club who I said were hoping to be tenants at the new Warwick Community Stadium. He did reply to one of my posts to say my suggestion of Wasps moving there was utter tosh (well, words to that effect). He didn't explain why the project had gone cold, why Brakes had not said anything publicly for some time. Indeed, their website is currently down (probably coincidence, as it was up, but I see that their domain registration expired today. It looks to be hosted by a brand within the Newfold Digital Group, which is never a good sign. They are to web hosting as Delboy was to an upmarket department store.)
There was some mention of Brakes losing their stadium and I am pretty sure I saw talk of a planning application in Warwick DC for housing, (I can't find any planning application) but it was rejected (maybe at discussion phase) because the Harbury Lane/Fosse Way junction (at Chesterton) was too dangerous and needed upgrading to either a roundabout or traffic lights (the latter with pedestrian and cycle provision). And, right now, and due to last another year, massive road works are underway to build traffic lights there. It was an incredibly dangerous junction, with a LOT of accidents. My guess is, now those works are underway, the application to build housing there can be revived. In turn, that was why Brakes needed a new stadium. I am not sure who actually owns the current ground, but I doubt it is the club themselves (it isn't in their accounts), more likely a connected party, or even the Warwick District Council. One thing is sure, Brakes are in a parlous, but not dire, financial situation, and certainly could not offer any financial contribution to a new stadium, so any talk of it being 'theirs' is fluff.
What do the Council Cabinet minutes say about the Community Stadium site? The last mention I can see is from last July, when they were still looking for a developer (== funds), and keeping any discussion private. Also keeping Brakes and ward councillors 'in consultation'. Some of the other projects, like the new athletics track and footpaths, seem to be progressing, albeit slowly.
-
It feels like they're going after the wrong people and instead of the RFU, or Wasps they should be targeting their new owners and Begbies as the Administrators.
Were the new owners to commit to paying their rugby debts, as Wasps have supposedly agreed to, they would have a place in the Championship and a stadium to play at.
-
It feels like they're going after the wrong people and instead of the RFU, or Wasps they should be targeting their new owners and Begbies as the Administrators.
Were the new owners to commit to paying their rugby debts, as Wasps have supposedly agreed to, they would have a place in the Championship and a stadium to play at.
The problem is this was very much the situation at the Ricoh. CCFC fans and certain local press went after Wasps for the duration when the issues were being caused by their owners SISU.
New Wasps will be the recipients of all the ire and abuse when it's their new owners that have let them down by not paying their creditors and resurrecting Warriors. We even took flack at Adams Park from Wycombe fans.
With all due respect to Midlands based fans, Wasps belong in the London area and this is the fall out from the move to a different geographical region. What I would like to know is where's Eastwood in all this? We were courting the Ricoh for years prior to moving there when Copsey was in charge, and the only consistent name I can see during the whole Coventry saga is Eastwood. Given the legal proceedings Derek is taking out against advice given by a person/company on the board years back before the move (can't remember the name off the top of my head), did Eastwood use Wasps to get hold of the Ricoh and persuade Richardson to bankroll the move?
-
It feels like they're going after the wrong people and instead of the RFU, or Wasps they should be targeting their new owners and Begbies as the Administrators.
Were the new owners to commit to paying their rugby debts, as Wasps have supposedly agreed to, they would have a place in the Championship and a stadium to play at.
Agreed. Rugby debts may well prove to be very woolly to define in Court, which is where most of the significant debtors may end up going.
Add in a (reasonable) requirement for the debtor to minimise their losses (for example by getting another job, claiming benefits, claiming on insurance), that number may not be anywhere near as large as it was supposed. Especially if Wasps find a way to avoid paying player wages (and I bet that they will try), which must be a lot of the debt.
Wasps will likely put a deadline on any claims being made, after which they will not be considered, and make that quite short. Is this the first time a club has been in this position? Who decides what is a fair claim, is there an arbitration system, and so on? There is no legal contract or obligation, so Court action might be problematic. Only a legal definition of 'rugby creditor' would be accepted by a Court, and I doubt, for legal purposes, such a hard definition exists.
Like many of the RFU laws, they are seen to be doing the 'right' thing for the sport, whilst not actually doing anything of the sort.
Thus, I would argue, Atlas would have had similar advice to Wasps on this matter, and could have chosen to accept that requirement. But they did not accept it, and thus effectively killed Worcester Warriors. That is where the blame should lie, but Atlas have so far proved impervious to criticism, so, when no one is listening, the fans get angry at everyone in sight.
-
What I would like to know is where's Eastwood in all this? We were courting the Ricoh for years prior to moving there when Copsey was in charge, and the only consistent name I can see during the whole Coventry saga is Eastwood. Given the legal proceedings Derek is taking out against advice given by a person/company on the board years back before the move (can't remember the name off the top of my head), did Eastwood use Wasps to get hold of the Ricoh and persuade Richardson to bankroll the move?
Since the Autumn I have managed to speak to several former Wasps players (and their families), and to one of the "names" that has been associated with the "phoenix-Wasps".
Although I hvaen't been given any information about the future that isn't already known, one thing has become apparent. Very few are blaming Derek - everyone appears to be blaming Eastwood, as he was the one who was tasked with just about everything to do with running the organisation. As stated he was the main mover in the relocation to Coventry, and it was him that persuaded the RFU and PRL that it was a great move for Rugby.
An interesting comment I had was that just before the meeting where everyone was told they were redundant, Stephen Vaughan, was telling players he had been told by his boss (Eastwood?) that everything was ok for the next few matches, and was seen to be as shocked as everyone when the administrators made their announcement.
-
]
I'll be honest: I find it hard to disagree with any of that. Very well stated.
Agree that it's hard to disagree with any of that.
However, I can't agree that it's very well stated. Strong on emotive language, speculation and rumour, but light on facts. Surely there is someone within the supporters' trust with some sort of legal/business background that could have composed a more professional submission?
-
I find I can't disagree with most WW fans who are as distraught as we are/were. However, I find the continual sniping from a vocal few (aided by certain repeat offenders from the SISU remnants) who seem to have continual stream of vective against anything Wasps is becoming counterproductive - in that I am losing sympathy.
It is OK and understandable to put together a paper to the RFU but to lower themselves to some of the contained comments, to my mind, reduces the arguement to sour grapes.
Surely they must be aware that their lovely new owners don't need rugby at the stadium now they have got it. They don't need to support or start a lower league WW. The Administrators gave them the land and for five whole years (as I understand it) they are not allowed to use it for any other purpose. After that who knows - my bet is a nice new Distribution Centre.
Do I want Wasps to go there - hell no (it is a 6 hour round trip without delays). It is a shithole place to get to. If Wasps land there will I go - yes because I support them. Mind you most away matches are far nearer so probably support with a ST that may not be used fully.
-
]
I'll be honest: I find it hard to disagree with any of that. Very well stated.
Agree that it's hard to disagree with any of that.
However, I can't agree that it's very well stated. Strong on emotive language, speculation and rumour, but light on facts. Surely there is someone within the supporters' trust with some sort of legal/business background that could have composed a more professional submission?
I agree. It's so full of contradictions and rants that go off at a tangent that they've diluted the genuine message that Wasps application is apparently against RFU regulations (which are open to a degree of interpretation).
For example, they mention that Atlas have "no plans for a WW mens team to play at Sixways for the foreseeable future" but Wasps playing at Sixways would negatively "impact the prospect of a Phoenix Worcester team", one that they've just stated doesn't exist!
Wasps playing there would also be "to the detriment of pre-existing local clubs" But WW playing there wouldn't???
They have very short memories, if WW were to miraculously re-appear, there have been plenty of ground shares in the Premiership, Irish at The Stoop for example. Nobody was ranting about stealing supporters AFAIK.
I also love the "unforgivable if a club without any stadium or facilities, which has left behind vast debts and misery in Coventry..." Unlike WW who are a club without a stadium or facilities and left behind huge debts and misery in Worcester! Pot meet kettle.
And then "The legacy of Cecil Duckworth, so important to everyone in Worcester, has been emasculated by both previous and current owners and we are determined that this must be reversed" 100% agree but I thought this was an objection to Wasps, what has Cecil Duckworth's legacy got to do with us? we're just trying to find somewhere to play, admittedly not going about it in a very honourable fashion. Allegedly.
I'm certain that we're all completely sympathetic to the plight that Worcester Wanders and their supporters find themselves in but guys, pick your battles, we're not the cause of your problems, we face many of the same issues and in an ideal world would be playing against WW in the Championship next season. Sadly, that's almost certainly not going to happen, it may not happen for us so little point in making enemies of Wasps supporters.
-
Nice to see some "friends" from Coventry have published their view -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65533658
-
As others have said, this is going to cause the same issues the club faced in Coventry. You would have hoped that Wasps would have learnt a lesson there?
Seem ridiculous to be going into a fractious local situation that may drag on for years & potentially affect success if any Phoenix venture.
-
As others have said, this is going to cause the same issues the club faced in Coventry. You would have hoped that Wasps would have learnt a lesson there?
Seem ridiculous to be going into a fractious local situation that may drag on for years & potentially affect success if any Phoenix venture.
I don't think Wasps really have the choice if they want to continue. Much the same for the move to Coventry (though buying the Ricoh was probably not the right move in hindsight).
This doesn't discount the idea that, without facts, it does appear to be a shady bit of business.
-
I don't think Wasps really have the choice if they want to continue.
I'm not so sure. According to the RFU statement Wasps had alreday discussed playing at Solihull so that must have been considered a viable option at some point?
Much the same for the move to Coventry
With hindsight I do wonder whether the move to Cov was the only option for Wasps survival that it was painted at the time.
Were other options really adequately explored or was a move rushed through because someone was hoping to make money on the deal?
Maybe the whole truth will come out one day
-
I heard that Coventry Rugby Club kicked off at the RFU when Wasps got approval for Solihull on the basis that it's close to them (albeit still further than Ampthill is to Bedford and Ealing is to Richmond & London Scottish) and could lose them fans. Eventually the RFU asked Wasps to find a plan B, which was when Sixways came up.
-
Big oops -
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/rugby/worcester-warriors-takeover-latest-news-doubts-b1079690.html
-
Much the same for the move to Coventry
With hindsight I do wonder whether the move to Cov was the only option for Wasps survival that it was painted at the time.
Were other options really adequately explored or was a move rushed through because someone was hoping to make money on the deal?
Maybe the whole truth will come out one day
I doubt we'll ever know.
However we were led to believe that the Met Police wouldn't allow another professional sports team within their area, which sounds very likely.
I also knew someone who worked at St Alban's council who said that there were discussions to move to a facility there but the council blocked it. She made it sound like one person in particular at the council ensured it was rejected.
I remember someone else saying something similar about another council.
So at the very least, that suggests to me that there was some genuine investigation into various other options
-
Big oops -
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/rugby/worcester-warriors-takeover-latest-news-doubts-b1079690.html
Is it possible that Begbies split the assets up in to tranches? The First tranche being the club (name etc) and the ground, and the ?500k and the loan from Holland, plus some more wonga got sorted and thus transferred, but the other assets yet to be paid for, as they are far more valuable as potential real estate (car park and land). Holland could not have registered a debenture on the stadium unless it was fully transferred. Anyone want to bet that Wasps get a time limited 'Yes' to playing at Sixways before the 21 days is up? And that the loan from Holland then becomes a long term loan decreasing by a set amount per match played? Atlas will then be able to get similar deals and loans on the other parts as developers come on board. The site will get developed, and 3-4 years from now an application to knock down the stadium after the five years has elapsed will be made. Wasps will have moved out, and the stadium will lie empty, unloved and start to fall apart as no maintenance will get done.
-
I don't think Wasps really have the choice if they want to continue.
I'm not so sure. According to the RFU statement Wasps had alreday discussed playing at Solihull so that must have been considered a viable option at some point?
Much the same for the move to Coventry
With hindsight I do wonder whether the move to Cov was the only option for Wasps survival that it was painted at the time.
Were other options really adequately explored or was a move rushed through because someone was hoping to make money on the deal?
Maybe the whole truth will come out one day
I think we had to move, but certainly with hindsight, the Cov plan only works if Derek R had the money to fund it himself. Were there other options? A very valid question. If Derek didn't have the cash for Cov, he certainly would not have had it for a scratch stadium build closer to home. In hindsight he was not the man we needed and still do need, because we need someone who doesn't have to borrow cash. We need someone with deep pockets.
A stadium share a la Irish in London might have gotten a few happy, myself included, in terms of ease, but they are reportedly being given the boot in two seasons and I am fed up of being at the mercy of football clubs. I think we fail in London, Kent, Anglia, Essex, wherever.
In hindsight Chris Wright's departure led us down a dark path that ended with no Wasps.
I guess we could, if we had money back then, have looked at a permanent ground share and scratch stadium build with Irish who also wanted home.
I think only a rugby groundshare works and with equal partners. That was never going to happen.
It is all back to the usual point. We need a rich owner, and if we get one we can play anywhere, if we don't then we are kicking about looking for vacant stadia, like the littlest hobo without the happy ending.
-
To be quite frank I?m really no longer interested in what this never ending line of entitled nimbies want. CCFC, CRFC, Worcester etc. They should focus on their own business. Maybe if they did that there businesses might not be in such a state. I?m not bothered if we?re not welcome - there?s always going to be someone objecting to whatever you do.
-
Irrespective of how emotional WW fans are, I completely agree.
It's very distasteful to use a fellow team's ground who went bust the same season you did, in your own comeback. It just doesn't sit right. If it was another active prem club I'd have issues, but consider it. However, not WW, I just don't agree with it.
But we're going to have far bigger problems beyond this, to try and be sustainable.
-
It doesn't sit well with me. Why does supporting Wasps always have to come with so much baggage? I was cautiously looking forward to the Solihull Moors ground share as it seemed realistic.
-
New in the Times:
Wasps? new life in Championship at risk as RFU deadline looms
Club have no director of rugby, while Worcester Warriors supporters group say Sixways proposal would break regulations
new
Alex Lowe, Rugby Correspondent
Tuesday May 09 2023, 9.00pm, The Times
Rugby union
Former Wasps head coach Blackett has taken a role as assistant coach at Bath
Former Wasps head coach Blackett has taken a role as assistant coach at Bath
DENNIS GOODWIN/PROSPORTS/SHUTTERSTOCK
Share
Save
Wasps are in a race against time to secure a place in the Championship for next season ? and their future as a viable professional rugby club. At present they have no director of rugby and no players, while the chief executive, Andy Scott, left a month ago, with no replacement appointed. Wasps are a club who exist on paper only and the clock is ticking.
The new owners have until the RFU?s board meeting this month to demonstrate that they can fulfil up to eight criteria ? ranging from governance to building a competitive squad ? or their licence to compete in the Championship next season will be revoked.
Wasps, the champions of England on six occasions and twice conquerors of Europe, were suspended from the Gallagher Premiership by the RFU in October after going bust with ?95 million of debt, and then relegated to the second tier as punishment.
Halo22 Ltd, a company owned by Christopher Holland, lifted the club out of administration in December when it bought the intellectual property, history and memorabilia of Wasps RFC for ?150,000. The Wasps Legends Charitable Foundation, which includes Kenny Logan, Peter Scrivener and Mark Rigby, is thought to have provided working capital to the phoenix operation.
Jack Willis, who will remain at Toulouse next season, leaves the field against Northampton in October ? Wasps currently have no players on their booksJack Willis, who will remain at Toulouse next season, leaves the field against Northampton in October ? Wasps currently have no players on their books
Jack Willis, who will remain at Toulouse next season, leaves the field against Northampton in October ? Wasps currently have no players on their books
DAVID ROGERS/GETTY IMAGES
The RFU announced in December that Wasps would be permitted to take their place in the Championship after the governing body had conducted ?extensive due diligence?, including a background check on Holland, who already owned the club?s training centre at Henley-in-Arden, Warwickshire, and an examination of the business plan.
However, this licence approval was subject to a series of specific conditions being met and there is understood to be some concern at Twickenham over the progress Wasps have made. The RFU wants to be certain that the club will be able to participate next season so it can push ahead with restructuring the Championship, hence the looming deadline.
? Jack Willis: Staying in France was right decision despite England rule
The Championship this season comprised 12 clubs; it was won by Jersey, with Richmond set to be relegated and replaced by Cambridge. The inclusion of Wasps would make it a 13-team league. Some provisional fixture lists show the division could feature 14 teams, which would mean a stay of execution for Richmond.
On a sporting front, Wasps have much to do. They must demonstrate to the RFU that a new director of rugby is at least close to being appointed and provide evidence of a recruitment plan that would deliver a squad capable of competing in the Championship.
Wasps made initial inquiries about rehiring Lee Blackett, who was head coach when the club went bust, but he has now joined Bath as an assistant coach. With no director of rugby in place, Wasps have not recruited any players. The board have not been responding to inquiries from agents. The club will need to sign upwards of about 30 players before pre-season training begins in August.
? Stephen Jones: Losing Wasps and Worcester makes this the worst season ever
It is uncertain at present what the club?s playing budget would be. Having had to sell their Premiership share back to the league for ?9.8 million after going into administration, Wasps no longer have access to those top-flight revenue streams and Championship funding from the RFU is about ?100,000.
Meanwhile, Ealing Trailfinders, who finished second in the league to Jersey Reds, have strengthened for next season with the recruitment from Gloucester of Billy Twelvetrees, the former England centre, and Jordy Reid, the flanker.
Wasps have made progress on a potential stadium, although that tale exposes further the cruel and continuing mismanagement of Worcester Warriors, the first club who went into administration this season.
The best location in the country for the establishment of a new professional rugby club would be Canterbury in Kent, according to research, because of the potential for converting a strong rugby community into followers of a Premiership team.
However, Wasps are set on remaining in the Midlands, near the training centre, and they have requested permission from the RFU to play at Sixways, Worcester?s home ground, for the next three years.
The Worcester Warriors Supporters Trust has told the RFU it would be ?unforgivable? to grant Wasps permission to play at SixwaysThe Worcester Warriors Supporters Trust has told the RFU it would be ?unforgivable? to grant Wasps permission to play at Sixways
The Worcester Warriors Supporters Trust has told the RFU it would be ?unforgivable? to grant Wasps permission to play at Sixways
DAVID DAVIES/PA
Last week it emerged that Holland, via another of his companies, Loxwood Holdings Ltd, had loaned Worcester?s new owners, Atlas WWRFC, ?1.15 million.
The arrangement was described by Wasps as ?a means of securing our agreement to enter a three-year lease for Sixways?.
With the Wasps training centre being rented by Birmingham City FC at present, the club could relocate fully to the Sixways site ? using it for matches, training and as a headquarters for all rugby operations at a cost of ?600,000 a year.
But the whole arrangement has provoked strong opposition from the Worcester Warriors Supporters Trust (WWST), which has told the RFU it would be ?unforgivable? to grant Wasps permission to play at Sixways.
The WWST claimed the tenancy proposal and the loan arrangement breached multiple RFU regulations, including rules that state no party can hold direct or indirect influence over a second club.
?It would be unforgivable if a club without any stadium or facilities, which has left behind vast debts and misery in Coventry, was given preferential treatment over our long-established club,? the WWST said in a statement to the RFU.
?Wasps have no history in our local area; we believe they are intent on effectively poaching a ?ready-made? fanbase.?
If the Sixways plan is rejected by the RFU ? or if Atlas WWRFC cannot pay back the loan and the stadium has to be sold ? then Wasps will play their home games next season at Solihull Moors FC, which has already been signed off.
To be granted their provisional licence back in December, Wasps had to commit to settling all debts with rugby creditors, including players, club employees and agents who went unpaid before the previous incarnation of the club hit the wall.
This is believed to be one of the bigger stumbling blocks, especially if Derek Richardson, the former owner, who is owed ?28 million from loans to the club, is also considered a rugby creditor. The club are understood to be arguing that the image rights portion of a player?s income should not be included.
The RFU has governance demands too. Under the terms of the insolvency agreement, Wasps must demonstrate that the majority of the board is independent. There has been no public confirmation of appointments but it was reported in December that the Wasps board includes: Dame Inga Beale, a former chief executive of Lloyd?s of London, Simon Morris, chief creative officer worldwide at Amazon, and Chris Braithwaite, a former head of Apple?s global real-estate division.
The board must hold its first meeting by May 31, to which an RFU observer must be invited to attend. Wasps must also demonstrate they have established an audit and risk committee and provide their most recent accounts.
?We have been given certain criteria to meet a deadline set by the RFU and will submit a detailed written response to them by the due date,? a Wasps spokesperson said.
The future of Wasps rests on whether the RFU board is satisfied by that submission. The clock is ticking.
-
Crikey - a few interesting nuggets in there. And a hell of a long way to go!
-
If all of that is correct, it doesn't look promising does it?
the a LOT to get done in a very short space of time.
-
Don't take all you read at face value. The team are very focussed.
-
It's not just the DoR and players - it's the entire back room staff that would need to be put in place to support a professional rugby team, Doctors, medics, coaching staff, analysts, groundsmen, ticket office staff, match day security etc etc. And with no DOR in place they have noone to drive any of that.
Signing 30 random players with no plan is a recipe for disaster- they need a DoR in place with a vision and a strategy, and they have very little time to do it. I'd almost argue that getting a DoR in to drive all of that is almost more important than the ground situation, especially is solihull is a legitimate backup with rfu approval. If recruitment doesn't begin till after the May meeting, I'd argue it's actually too late at that point.
No wonder there were rumours the owners asked the rfu for a year's reprieve. If I was a betting man I wouldn't be putting any money on wasps being in the championship next year - it's nothing more than a pipe dream at the moment.
-
Lots to process, and sounds like a lot to do.
I think it's a shame that Solihull was relegated to Plan B, with the Sixways involvement taking top spot and, with the Atlas issues, muddying the water and (making an assumption here) delaying announcements and potentially the recruitment process.
I have no doubt people are working hard to make things happen, but the clock really does seem to be ticking.
Usually very optimistic, but feeling less so every day.
-
DOR - Is Dai Young available yet?!
-
Don't take all you read at face value.
I did say if that is all correct...
The team are very focused
I am sure they are but:
1. Who is the team? I can't believe Chris Holland & Inga Beale are recruiting players, physios etc themselves?
2. You can be as focused as you like but the clock has been ticking very loudly for a while.
Look, I know there will be stuff going on in the background that we don't know about, but even if half of whats required has been sorted, that's still leaving a LOT of things to get done.
If Wasps get a team to run out in September in the championship it will be a miracle.
-
I think it's a shame that Solihull was relegated to Plan B
It is possible Moors either withdrew the offer, or it was only a short term deal (like maybe one year). The whole site and area is the subject of a massive redevelopment project (of that entire A45 corridor all the way out to the new HS2 station) by the local council, and I think their ground is earmarked for warehousing, so at some point they would be moving out anyway.
-
I find it interesting that the RFU are insisting on there being a DoR, when we did perfectly well without one for some time.
-
I find it interesting that the RFU are insisting on there being a DoR, when we did perfectly well without one for some time.
Some very strange things coming out and you do wonder how much is fabrication or supposition.
-
I find it interesting that the RFU are insisting on there being a DoR
I would suspect its less about having an actual DoR and more about having a suitable management & coaching team in place or at least signed up. The RFU are going to be very careful to not allow a cowboy outfit to play in Championship, and that goes from the finance & board members right down to the physios & ground staff.
-
The administrator has issued a short statement saying Atlas were the only bid to put forward a business plan.Other main bid refused.
I wonder who they could mean?
-
I wondered if some recent player and coach movements were lined up for us, but the lack of progress meant they couldn't wait any longer. For example Billy Twelvetrees and Jordy Reid from Gloucester to Trailfinders and Lee Blackett going to Bath. Potentially Gopperth with his leaving Tigers too.
Obviously could be me making 2 + 2 = 5, but I remember there was something about the Gloucester CEO with Vickery and Logan saying exciting news will be announced soon, and then Scrivs referencing Ealing and Jersey in a tweet has having helped Wasps.
Personally I can't see it happening now - too many false dawns followed by bigger hurdles.
-
Andy, at the end of March Lance Bradley tweeted:
https://twitter.com/Lance_Bradley_/status/1639037166713184257 (https://twitter.com/Lance_Bradley_/status/1639037166713184257)
Lots of conjecture. It appears we got it all wrong. A month later, this appeared.
-
I wondered if some recent player and coach movements were lined up for us, but the lack of progress meant they couldn't wait any longer. For example Billy Twelvetrees and Jordy Reid from Gloucester to Trailfinders and Lee Blackett going to Bath. Potentially Gopperth with his leaving Tigers too.
Obviously could be me making 2 + 2 = 5, but I remember there was something about the Gloucester CEO with Vickery and Logan saying exciting news will be announced soon, and then Scrivs referencing Ealing and Jersey in a tweet has having helped Wasps.
Personally I can't see it happening now - too many false dawns followed by bigger hurdles.
The Donkey players were rumoured to Ealing months ago so I doubt they were in our frame. Lee did say in an interview that he had been talking to the Wasps New Board people but it didn't sound like he was looking to be involved.
-
Andy, at the end of March Lance Bradley tweeted:
https://twitter.com/Lance_Bradley_/status/1639037166713184257 (https://twitter.com/Lance_Bradley_/status/1639037166713184257)
Lots of conjecture. It appears we got it all wrong. A month later, this appeared.
Ah, thanks Ross and Neils. I definitely found a way of making 2+2=anything but 4!
-
So who is actually involved in this now, with the comment that Andy Scott left a month ago, who is actually doing the day to day stuff as someone obviously is with responses to questions and applications to the RFU.
Is it just Chris Holland & the other board members, assuming they are still there?
-
Apparently it?s 3-4 individuals doing it for free out of the goodness of their hearts. Probably the likes of Holland, Logan etc. If Scott has gone it answers why social media etc has been on the back burner. The apparent distance to travel looks substantial but equally we have Holland loaning cash to Atlas. Very odd.
-
Personally I can't see how Wasps would be in any position to compete with Ealing for players.
-
Personally I can't see how Wasps would be in any position to compete with Ealing for players.
+1
Concur. Established Championship club, ambitious and well financed.
Wasps.... none of the above. At present.
-
Personally I can't see how Wasps would be in any position to compete with Ealing for players.
+1
Concur. Established Championship club, ambitious and well financed.
Wasps.... none of the above. At present.
That we know of!
-
Suffice to say I'm looking forward to seeing the documentary that is being made at the moment. There's going to be a lot revealed for sure!
-
IIRC Holland lent Atlas money for 21 days re a Sixways stadium tenancy.
Now thats no longer required & the 21 days must be about up, I wonder what impact that might have on the Atlas / Warriors deal?