Always a Wasp

It doesn't matter how much money you lose if you have someone willing to underwrite it. They do and we didn't.

That's the only difference, but its a hell of a difference.

How'd you manage that Wonky? I click the button and it just directs to the same homepage, nothing happens.

Tried on Chrome and IE, both same.

That's just it, you can lose as much as you like as long as someone is willing to cover it.

Our problems have always been our owners were never rich enough!

It's interesting that when he was running Wasps Derek was hailed as an astute business man that knew a thing or two about success. There were many a post explaining you don't get to be as wealthy as Derek did without being on the ball, on top of your game etc etc. Now the majority view here seems to be support for the view that Derek was the unwitting victim of bad advice and couldn't possibly have known he had given up control of his business 'cause lawyers and advisors said it will all be OK. There's now't as fickle as folk I guess.

I for one hope it does get to court, only then will we get more detail about what went on. What was Derek hoping to achieve by moving the business to being based in Malta? There must have been an advertised upside to the move. I see Channel 5 have a programme about Malta on tonight, maybe that will shed some light on the benefits of being based there?

This isn't meant to be an anti-Derek rant, I was happy when he took over from Steve Hayes. I thought he represented vision and stability. However, I can't let him totally of the hook either, he was the owner when it collapsed and it would appear decisions he made contributed to it happening. If this case is to be believed he had no idea what he was doing, just following along with whatever he was "advised" to do. But there must have been a reason why.

Like a lot of people I'd just like to know why it happened, and see if there's anything to learn from it to stop it all happening again.

Only issue I have with 3 is it means an underpowered scrum (think Aussies in the early '00s) gets away with not being able to hold a scrum up at all. There is no easy answer to this. Either you over reward a dominant scrum or under penalise a totally ineffective one.

Can you kick a drop goal direct from a free kick? If so this would stop a weak scrum just collapsing in a kickable position at least. If not what is to stop a powderpuff front row from going to ground every 5m defensive scrum?

I think there would be fewer completed scrums, not more.

In truth I think the Social media idea is a classic piece of modern politicing. Float up an idea you were never going to introduce anyway to stir up the ire of the fanbase and then introduce some other (slightly) less toxic plan. It will be seen as an improvement and proof that "we listened and we acted".

I'm not sure you can sanction on the basis of intent. How do you determine intent?

I wonder if they'll get any help uprooting and moving across the country?