Worcester Warriors Gone

[Neils]

Worcester Warriors owners withdraw proposal to play in Championship in 2023-24 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64502475

[jamestaylor002]

This is a real shame and I have real sympathy for everyone who was involved in Worcester, including the fans. Like us with Wasps, I'm sure many people had hopes that they would return in some capacity.

I know that one of the stumbling blocks was about the origin of the investment in Worcester. Was that because the RFU were being difficult or was there a genuine cause for concern (or was there a bit of both)?

[Neils]

I suspect from the RFU pointt of view it was genuine concern. They got severely burned publicly on WW and Wasps (although I still think they were fundamentally different) that they had to enforce a far better check. Worcester's Administrator knew this but had to go for the money bid. Very very sad for the true supporters and the city.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

As I said about Wasps, the same applied to Warriors. A lot of hoops the RFU wants both teams to jump through.

Stourbridge are bottom of their league, and need rescuing if they are not to go down. But why not team up with the other club in Worcester? I guess they said no.

I am expecting much the same with Wasps. If we are tied to Henley, we are between a rock and a hard place. Might even see us merge with my local club (Stratford on Avon, who are in the same league as Worcester RFC, have 3 pitches at their ground), who are in Regional 2 West Midlands. Their ground would be worth a fortune if developed. But, Wasps have nothing to offer other than the training site. At least O'Toole had a ground. My guess is most clubs would say no, unless they were facing eviction from their ground. Henley could be made to have four pitches.

Thing is, once you make that decision not to play in the Championship, there is no rush, other than watching the fans melt away.

[WonkyWasp]

I feel exceedingly sorry for Stourbridge, for the players and their supporters at Stourbridge, and I cannot see the Stourbridge supporters transferring themselves or their loyalty to Worcester  -  're-branding' or not. I also feel that Wuss have been shafted yet again.  Heaven forfend that Wasps is involved in any way.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

I feel exceedingly sorry for Stourbridge, for the players and their supporters at Stourbridge, and I cannot see the Stourbridge supporters transferring themselves or their loyalty to Worcester  -  're-branding' or not. I also feel that Wuss have been shafted yet again.  Heaven forfend that Wasps is involved in any way.

Agreed. Their ground is a decent one, nice stands, in green belt land. I wonder who owns that land?

The more I think about this all, the more I can smell a stench of something not at all right. This is a stitch up between O'Toole, whoever owns the Stourbridge ground, Wasps and the RFU.

You watch, at some point Sixways Rugby will rebrand as Worcester Warriors. A 5 year deal gives Wasps 5 years to find a new home. About the right amount of time for Warwick District Council to pull its finger out and get their new community stadium built. You can see this cozy deal coming like a big rock rolling down a hill.

[Neils]

Another twist -

https://www.cityam.com/dcms-and-rfu-in-talks-to-block-the-sale-of-worcester-warriors-to-atlas/

[NellyWellyWaspy]

Another twist -

https://www.cityam.com/dcms-and-rfu-in-talks-to-block-the-sale-of-worcester-warriors-to-atlas/

I am not certain the RFU would have any grounds to block anything about the deal. Nor do I think they want to. The DCMS have lost their money owed by Warriors. They certainly cannot stop Begbies from selling it all to Atlas. A neat legal sidestep. What the RFU COULD do to sink the deal is to tell Wasps they cannot play at Sixways.

But, I have a sneaking suspicion the RFU knew about this deal for a while and have given it the nod already.

[Gaz]

Atlas have bought the name and the assets without any intention of bending to the RFUs requirements, now take their money to suck the lifeblood out of another local community rugby club.

So much wrong with this.

Rename Stourbridge to Sixways, relocate them 25 miles down the road to try to leverage some income from their main asset. It stinks, it's worse than what happened to Wasps over the last 8-9 years. If I was a Stourbridge or Warriors supporter I'd take no part in whatever entity arises from this mess.

[Rossm]

Steve Diamond says club 'would have been in Championship under us'

Report from the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64594603

[baldpaul101]

Steve Diamond says club 'would have been in Championship under us'

Report from the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64594603

The interesting part of that is this:

"Sandford also insists that the Atlas Group were also committed to paying off Warriors' rugby creditors.

"We have never said that we would not pay rugby creditors, even with the new approach," he told BBC 5 Live. "That's something that's been picked up and run with that's not entirely true.

"Let's be transparent that in December, we had focused primarily on entering the Championship under Worcester Warriors.

"It was made very clear to us we were to sign the insolvency terms as they stood, or there was no point in engaging any further.

"Part of our bid was to pay off the rugby creditors and we had what to our side was an insurmountable sum of a range of ?2m and ?8m.

"But we had terms put upon us by the RFU to pay that within 30 days without having the opportunity to do any due diligence on those, or understand who was the most critical of those rugby creditors.

"We agreed that we wouldn't pay them in full but that we needed some time.

"It is a difficult and trying time. We knew we were coming into a situation which was going to be challenging but we need to turn this round not for a quick solution. We need to make it sustainable."

[baldpaul101]

Interesting report seen, can't find it now! quoting O'Toole saying that they can't start their ownership with a debt caused by paying rugby creditors. But surely that was always going to be part of the deal, so you can only assume that they bought the club knowing that they never intended to pay the rugby creditors & tehrefore never had any intention to keep Warriors in the champ....

Atlas sound just as bad as the last lot!!

[Neils]

Interesting report seen, can't find it now! quoting O'Toole saying that they can't start their ownership with a debt caused by paying rugby creditors. But surely that was always going to be part of the deal, so you can only assume that they bought the club knowing that they never intended to pay the rugby creditors & tehrefore never had any intention to keep Warriors in the champ....

Atlas sound just as bad as the last lot!!

Part of the RFU requirement but apparently not part of the Administrators (there's was get as much money as possible).

[baldpaul101]

Part of the RFU requirement but apparently not part of the Administrators (there's was get as much money as possible).

But thats my point, it was always going to be part of the RFU requirements to allow Warriors to play in the Champ so why buy the club, knowing that you had no intention of meeting those requirements?

Lets hope Stourbridge SGM or the RFU tell them to do one!!

Its going to be very tempting for Stourbridge to accept given the position they are in, and the potential of where their 1st team could go with this backing, but you would hope they see the danger of getting into bed with what seem a very dodgy bunch.

My local amateur club went through a proposed merger a few years ago. It was unanimously rejected but was a painful & divisive time but it did galvanise the club into dealing with its problems & it hasn't looked back.

[Covguy]

Maybe someone who has more knowledge of subject can tell me if I am right or wrong.

So administrator is legally bound to maximise returns for creditors. In terms of the Worcester situation there is a separate situation whereby RFU demand rugby creditors are paid in order for team to be resurrected in championship. The payment to rugby creditors is outside of the administration process as otherwise I guess funds would have to be allocated between all creditors.

So In theory the winning bid could have been the lowest. Example winning bid offers ?10m. Next bid is ?6m but they want to return to championship so also have to pay the ?8m to rugby creditors. However administrator only can act on the ?10m versus ?6m. Is that correct understanding?

If it is then I am not surprised how is has gone. The land and facilities are the prize. If you dont care about rugby returning you get them at lower overall cost.