Missed opportunity

[Vespula Vulgaris]

If one of the other Premiership clubs, any of them, had come out publicly and offered unwavering support to Wasps. Stating that they shouldn't be relegated, that they shouldn't lose the P Share....

They'd have picked up a load of new fans.

[jamestaylor002]

Yes, this is true!

[WonkyWasp]

Maybe that depends a bit on the club!  But yes, it would have been . . . ''fam'ly'' and all that.  Or not.

[Shugs]

To take that a bit further. There are 2, maybe 3 sweating on their own finances. If they’d have come out forcibly in favour of us not being stripped of the P share they may have safeguarded themselves. But they’ve hunkered down, praying that someone joins us and Wuss. They know full well once the 10 are in place PRL/RFU etc etc will sweat blood to protect their slimmed down elite.

[The Falcon]

To take that a bit further. There are 2, maybe 3 sweating on their own finances. If they’d have come out forcibly in favour of us not being stripped of the P share they may have safeguarded themselves. But they’ve hunkered down, praying that someone joins us and Wuss. They know full well once the 10 are in place PRL/RFU etc etc will sweat blood to protect their slimmed down elite.

Equally they have a fair argument that if clubs are able to use administration to wipe their debts and come back into the fold unscathed, it sets an unwelcome precedent. We did vote for the 'closed shop' after all.

[Andywasp50]

To take that a bit further. There are 2, maybe 3 sweating on their own finances. If they’d have come out forcibly in favour of us not being stripped of the P share they may have safeguarded themselves. But they’ve hunkered down, praying that someone joins us and Wuss. They know full well once the 10 are in place PRL/RFU etc etc will sweat blood to protect their slimmed down elite.

Equally they have a fair argument that if clubs are able to use administration to wipe their debts and come back into the fold unscathed, it sets an unwelcome precedent. We did vote for the 'closed shop' after all.

I read Massey-Phillips comments around that and thought it was a nonsensical argument - it’s full of holes and was just a backside covering piece of bluster…

“There is a scenario where a club could just write off all of its debt,” he said. “But then if it retains its P share you then have a league where the vast majority of teams still have significant debt, playing against a team that has no debt but retains the same income as them from the P share. So you have another form of disruption and inequality.”

So how does he explain clubs currently playing with significant debt against the likes of clubs in the black like Exeter and Saracens? Is he saying it’s unfair for clubs in the black to have a P share and play clubs in debt full stop?
The PRL and RFU have already stated that they don’t get involved in individual club finances and consider them as businesses out of their remit, so why does it matter if they find a way to clear it and take the relegation hit? This especially as not including the P share means buyers pull out of saving us and effectively signs our death warrant.
Why didn’t it matter with the Cheats when they had an unfair financial advantage over a number of years with their method of financing breaking the cap?

Obviously you cant have clubs going in and out of administration regularly to clear their debts, but his words above sound like a load of bluster to cover the sudden U turn from a 14 team competition to 10 teams, which is a decision that has emerged out of the ether since Baxter first touched on it last week and feels driven by some clubs with an interest in sharing the spoils. The bigger return from less shares allowing some clubs to profit more  over others with significant debt!

[wasps]

Just the very existence of a P share seems ridiculous to me.
I don't know if other sports have something similar.


It should be that if you play in the premiership then you're entitled to your share of the TV money for that season.
You should also have some input on decisions made that season too.
This "us Vs them" bullshit is inequality in itself and doesn't feel right.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Andywasp50,

As I've said elsewhere, the idea that clubs can go in to administration just to wipe out debts is financial nonsense. The courts won't allow it and the creditors have a say and you won't get credit anyway after you've tried it once.

[BlackAndGoldSunglasses]

I've noticed an evident sound of silence from all the other clubs, with the notable exception of the Worcester fans who know what we're dealing with.

Not so much "rugby family" as "dysfunctional family".

[WonkyWasp]

Uncaaring family.  Of the still ''functioning'' clubs I've so far only seen one sympathetic comment (other than Wuss) that has appeared on either site,  from a Saint.  With, I think,  the best of intentions he suggested going to  Saints  as it was near to Coventry.  A kind thought but not one I could accept for many reasons.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

I wish I could draw because I envisage a cartoon that has 2 drowning men, one in Wasps shirt the other in Worcester shirt, clutching at a life raft called P Shares. Around them 11 sharks are circling, each wearing one of the other clubs' shirts.

[InBetweenWasp]

Some interesting thoughts on the P-Shares from JB at Eggchasers and how valuable they actually are (and will be).

My understanding is that the P-Shares get 'rescinded' from us by PRL and it doesn't seem like they are required to pay for them - They effectively take them back and divide them by the remaining shareholders. 

So despite them down as a healthy asset on the balance sheet, they're effectively worth nothing as an asset (although obviously are as an income stream).  I don't believe the Clubs can simply go and 'buy' our P-Shares to then get a greater slice of the pie (it has to be a unanimous agreement from all shareholders and it's not weighted by shareholding).

I'm guessing the income is around £1.9m per season via TV Rights and around £1.25m via RFU agreement (crude calcuations - CVC own 27% and have split the remainder via '14' to include 13 teams and PRL as equal shareholders.  Most recent BT Sport deal was £110m for 3 season, RFU deal is unclear but the first 4 seasons was £28m per season could be more/less now).

[The Falcon]

I read Massey-Phillips comments around that and thought it was a nonsensical argument - it’s full of holes and was just a backside covering piece of bluster…

“There is a scenario where a club could just write off all of its debt,” he said. “But then if it retains its P share you then have a league where the vast majority of teams still have significant debt, playing against a team that has no debt but retains the same income as them from the P share. So you have another form of disruption and inequality.”

So how does he explain clubs currently playing with significant debt against the likes of clubs in the black like Exeter and Saracens? Is he saying it’s unfair for clubs in the black to have a P share and play clubs in debt full stop?
The PRL and RFU have already stated that they don’t get involved in individual club finances and consider them as businesses out of their remit, so why does it matter if they find a way to clear it and take the relegation hit? This especially as not including the P share means buyers pull out of saving us and effectively signs our death warrant.
Why didn’t it matter with the Cheats when they had an unfair financial advantage over a number of years with their method of financing breaking the cap?

Obviously you cant have clubs going in and out of administration regularly to clear their debts, but his words above sound like a load of bluster to cover the sudden U turn from a 14 team competition to 10 teams, which is a decision that has emerged out of the ether since Baxter first touched on it last week and feels driven by some clubs with an interest in sharing the spoils. The bigger return from less shares allowing some clubs to profit more  over others with significant debt!

The point stands-we voted for a closed shop. You might be right, a smaller group of clubs want a bigger share of the spoils, but were we bothered about that when we supported denying clubs the right to promotion? I don't think so. What were our offerings to the wider rugby family below the Premiership then?

Unfortunately what goes around, comes around.

[jamestaylor002]

I read Massey-Phillips comments around that and thought it was a nonsensical argument - it’s full of holes and was just a backside covering piece of bluster…

“There is a scenario where a club could just write off all of its debt,” he said. “But then if it retains its P share you then have a league where the vast majority of teams still have significant debt, playing against a team that has no debt but retains the same income as them from the P share. So you have another form of disruption and inequality.”

So how does he explain clubs currently playing with significant debt against the likes of clubs in the black like Exeter and Saracens? Is he saying it’s unfair for clubs in the black to have a P share and play clubs in debt full stop?
The PRL and RFU have already stated that they don’t get involved in individual club finances and consider them as businesses out of their remit, so why does it matter if they find a way to clear it and take the relegation hit? This especially as not including the P share means buyers pull out of saving us and effectively signs our death warrant.
Why didn’t it matter with the Cheats when they had an unfair financial advantage over a number of years with their method of financing breaking the cap?

Obviously you cant have clubs going in and out of administration regularly to clear their debts, but his words above sound like a load of bluster to cover the sudden U turn from a 14 team competition to 10 teams, which is a decision that has emerged out of the ether since Baxter first touched on it last week and feels driven by some clubs with an interest in sharing the spoils. The bigger return from less shares allowing some clubs to profit more  over others with significant debt!

The point stands-we voted for a closed shop. You might be right, a smaller group of clubs want a bigger share of the spoils, but were we bothered about that when we supported denying clubs the right to promotion? I don't think so. What were our offerings to the wider rugby family below the Premiership then?

Unfortunately what goes around, comes around.

I appreciate that the club will have voted for a closed shop but I remember many Wasps fans (amongst many other fans of different clubs) disagreeing with removing relegation.

[The Falcon]

I appreciate that the club will have voted for a closed shop but I remember many Wasps fans (amongst many other fans of different clubs) disagreeing with removing relegation.

But the club did vote for it-and so whatever we as fans may have thought, the club put itself in this position. Supporting this when losing £10 million a year with a looming bond repayment deadline just seems like gross mismanagement.

I'd suggest that those annoyed at third parties ought to look at the executives in our own club.