Always a Wasp

Quote from: wasps on June 09, 2023, 11:46:07 AM

Have any players commented on the less teams stuff?


If there's to be 10 teams instead of 13, then that's 18 league games per season rather than 24.


A quarter less games, a quarter less salary

Or, a quarter fewer games, enabling smaller squad sizes and similar salaries...

- Players get paid similar wages to now but play fewer games
- Clubs reduce their overall Wage bill by reducing squad size
- Reduced cap but increased number of teams across two divisions still means plenty of employment opportunities for players

I can see that.
But let's say salaries need to reduce by ?1 million per year, that's a lot of squad players at ?50k-?75k each.
Squads can't reduce in size by 15-20 players even with a quarter less games, as such, a number of senior players will need to be axed or take a pay cut.
There may be a reluctance with these senior players to drop down a division so a lot will consider a pay cut as an option.... Once that starts it could become the norm

Remember, it's a soft salary cap

I also don't think it will work, but I can understand some of the arguments for it.... And some of them work in other sports.


Ultimately, the aim is to get more money coming into the game, everything else is secondary.


So, what does a 10 team league give us?
Ultimately it gives us 230 players per week, rather than the current 322 players.
The hope is that we'll be concentrating the talent and seeing better quality players and therefore a better quality game.


If the quality of the game on show is better, and the players themselves are easier to recognise, the more people will watch it and then more sponsors will come on board.
More sponsors equals more money equals job done.


It all makes sense.
However, there's a few different types of supporters out there who are required to increase the viewership.
You've got die hard fans who will always watch their club.... You've got those viewers already.
You've got the older generation occasional viewers who remember arm wrestles on a muddy field dominated by a power game... These people may well enjoy watching a power based game every week.
Then you've got the younger generation of fans, who are arguably the future. They're after fast, exciting, readily consumable media. They want to be able to watch 5 minutes on their phone and see something exciting happening... They won't be captivated by 5 minutes of scrums, mauls or kick tennis

As an ex-owner, and someone who owned the club during our most successful period, he has as much right as anyone to express his opinion.




However, he sold the club to Steve Hayes who clearly had no interest in us specifically.
If anything, that could be pointed to as the beginning of the end.
We won the Heineken cup in 2007, he sold in 2008 and after that we were no longer a real force. 6 years later we're broke and up for sale.


This is an interview with Chris Wright in 2012 talking about the precarious position wasps were in at the time.
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/rugby/chris-wright-i-can-t-save-wasps-but-i-fear-for-them-if-they-go-down-7657209.html


Based on all that, I don't feel he should be pointing too many fingers

Quote

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

I'm no lawyer, but I would expect that being invited to play for England has no legal protection

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

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