Always a Wasp

I'm beginning to think Sweeney was appointed with the objective of destroying English Rugby. So far, he's stayed hidden behind his charges and sent them out to take the flack for the dismantling of the professional game.

He emerges now and again with a bit of corporate bluster on how he loves English Rugby, but it's staggering that his tenure has overseen such a malignancy in the game and he's still in a job. This is a man that was accused of being 'asleep on the job' whilst living in an 'ivory tower' by MPs, saw the demise of three professional clubs without lifting a finger to help, allowed a Northern hemisphere powerhouse to become a run of the mill outfit - denigrating the Premiership at the same time as English based top representatives are routinely thumped by anyone but the very weakest Six Nations sides in years - shown no vision with International managerial appointments, was looking to sell Twickenham to buy shares in Wembley, imposed tackling law levels without consultation that can't be managed at grassroots level and is now bullying the  Championship clubs to meet the requirements of a predictable and average standard competition.

The bagpipes and Scotland shirts and songs in Covent Garden this evening signalled a fourth successive defeat at the hands of the old foe, but the shame is it wasn't a surprise - we used to give Scotland a game but not any more, it's just the norm. That's a massive fall from grace and damning indictment of Sweeney's reign.

The Premiership is now sat alone in the corner trying to convince itself how good it is whilst the Top 14 and URC dominate the game in the NH.

Everyone likes beating the English and thanks to Sweeney it's open season.

I like to think that most people involved in ownership of rugby started out with good intentions. Perhaps with hindsight the team would have faired better if they had gone down to the championship before the Ricoh move and rebuilt from there. But where and how would still have been touch and go by the sounds of it.

The whole Ricoh saga from start to finish, and absence of comments from Derek (understand he can't due to legal proceedings) leaves me pretty convinced he only got involved with the incentive of acquiring the stadium and building potential around it. I don't blame him because he's obviously a businessman, and if you were going to pour ?millions into a rugby club you'd want to get a return on that rather then pouring money down a black hole. I have no doubt that he would have kept the rugby side operating in the premiership but on a tighter budget and was keen to make the whole set up work. It's just a shame that our club wasn't in a better place years ago and could have had a longer term plan then.

As far as the RFU and PRL go, it beggars belief that Sweeney and the PRL CEO (whose name escapers me for now) have the arrogance to remain in post whilst overseeing the darkest days of professional rugby union in England. Not only have three big clubs gone down the drain on Sweeney's watch but he's overseen a pretty poor run by the England team and headed an organisation that has 'bluffed' support for clubs like us to the media, rejected potential rescue packages and muddled directionless throughout the debacle. The PRL have shown little strategy or ability to value one of the biggest names in the history of its pro game and operated in the interests of a powerful few.

Which brings me to my main point. With the recent news regarding the processed food time bomb and the FSA, who have not been fulfilling their remit to the public in favour of the interests of powerful food companies; a lot of reading about what goes on in the City and how the FCA are similarly a token body who protect the interests of the powerful financial institutions; and on top of this the number of 'scientific' research programmes that get published favouring certain negligible products that turn out to have been funded by those who manufacture them, are the RFU and PRL any different?

By the start of this season, following the EA's short exile to the Championship and return despite refusing to fully open their books, the 'governing' bodies favoured a 14 team competition. Within months this changed to a 10 man closed shop after Baxter was gobbing this off in the media. Financial mismanagement lies squarely in the hands of the clubs who have gone under so far, but the playing field doesn't seem to have been very level in dealing out punishment and sanctions in an equitable way during a disaster for the English game, from the cheating scandal to now. Some clubs get short shrift whilst others who are favoured with lenience are woven deeply within the international and league set up. Baxter is losing many of his star players so wants to cut down the competition and chances of getting relegated whilst they rebuild. The league is now set up for the EAs to win every year, and you have to wonder how you get games where England request Smith is rested for Quins against a full strength cheats side with Farrell, or Dickson (worst ref in the prem) officiates the EAs play off in which Maitland's high tackle and likely red in the first few minutes is completely ignored, with even the radio commentators flabbergasted.

Sorry for the long witterings, but I think until the game changes significantly at the top and the governing bodies are restructured properly it's finished. It feels like they are only operating in the interests of the most powerful member(s), over the rest of the clubs, players, fans and game in England. I've no idea how this influence has been exerted, or am I tackling above the waist..? 

What's the odds on Arundel to Saracens...

It was an exciting game to watch and glad Leinster lost in the end as they had an overwhelming advantage playing at home. I see even O'Gara complained it was like Lansdowne Road because they had trouble finding a room for the players' partners and children post match, most being booked out to Leinster interests.

Seemed to be some bad blood as the EPRC are investigating an incident in the tunnel at half time, with La Rochelle saying something about lack of respect at the coin toss, and it looked like Leinster were happy to scream in Peyper's face repeatedly. Peyper was abysmal as usual, particularly at the breakdown, and even Kaye and Healey were openly critical of him.

Glad to hear the good wishes from the rugby community there.

Andy, at the end of March Lance Bradley tweeted:

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!

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 seems to me the more Chiefs fall away and lose players because Rowe isn't a bottomless pit of money, the more Gob Baxter whinges and find fault with the game. Could be the BBC see him as the voice of English rugby, but he's becoming boorish and perhaps desperate to keep his profile in the spotlight.

The implications for his comments on red cards are just what the game can't afford i.e. player gets sent off so you bring on a replacement - is it a like for like (back for back, forward for forward)? To do so means you need a full reserve team available for match day, given you have replacements that are assigned to be used tactically or that could get sent off themselves. That reserve team will have to be fully fit players with no suspensions, international call ups etc, so what kind of registered squad will you need - 70 odd players? How can you do that under the salary cap and where will these players come from.

Appreciate his point regarding a spectacle for the fans, but it could dilute the emphasis on player welfare, whilst at its cynical extreme, there's also the potential for exploitation should a a player like Markus Smith be taking a side apart in a big game - taking him out with a deliberate high tackle (or Chiefs style reckless diving in at a ruck) could level the game in favour of the offending side.

The real problem is that with TMO's you shouldn't end up with red cards being rescinded because they are there to make sure things are right first time around.