Worcester - Atlas have until 2nd May to complete purchase

[WonkyWasp]

Silly me.

[BlackAndGoldSunglasses]

Statement from Worcester Warriors Supporters Trust to RFU: https://www.wwst.co.uk/post/statement-to-rfu-8-5-23

A Statement from the Working Group of the Worcester Warriors Supporters Trust to the RFU: 08/05/2023

The RFU has confirmed that Wasps RFC has applied to play its home matches at Sixways Stadium, the home of Worcester Warriors, for the season 2023-24. We understand you wish to consult with local stakeholders. We believe that the supporters of Worcester Warriors are firmly in this category.

As you are aware, Atlas WWRFC has no plans for any Worcester Warriors Men?s team to play at Sixways for the foreseeable future. We believe that if Wasps become tenants at the stadium it would significantly impact, in a negative manner, the prospect of a phoenix Worcester team. Although most Warriors fans would choose not to support Wasps RFC, it is inevitable, over the proposed tenancy, that they would attract a local following. This would be to the detriment of pre-existing local rugby clubs, including any potential Warriors team. Wasps have no history in our local area; we believe they are intent on effectively poaching a ?ready-made? fan-base. There are other facilities closer to their previous ground(s); we do not believe they should be allowed to effectively set up a franchise in Worcestershire.

Additionally, from an administrative perspective, a Wasps? move to Sixways would be in direct contravention of RFU regulations 3.42(a), 5.71 and Regulation 5, Appendix 2, Section 15. We do not believe that Wasps have any right to be granted immunity from these regulations. They exist precisely for cases like this.

The Worcester Warriors Women?s team and Worcester Raiders FC play their home matches at Sixways. Currently the Warriors Women are the only elite level rugby team in Worcester and supporters would want them to remain as the primary tenant. We understand that both clubs have prospective deals to stay at Sixways. If Wasps also become tenants it would prevent a Worcester Warriors Men?s team playing at their own home ground due to fixture congestion. We see no other reason why Sixways could not host a phoenix Warriors team; Atlas WWRFC is hiding behind the idea that a lower league Warriors team would ?not be viable at Sixways?; we believe that they are simply trying to maximise their income from third party clubs and have no interest in reviving elite level men?s rugby under a Warriors banner. The supporters and the wider Worcester community have no desire for a cuckoo club to install itself at the Sixways Stadium or training facilities.

We also believe that the significant financial assistance provided by Loxwood Holdings Ltd., owned by Christopher Holland the owner of Wasps RFC, was the only reason that Atlas managed to complete their deal to buy Worcester Warriors. This is certainly not within the spirit of RFU regulation 4.2.1 and could be considered a breach.

Taking all these facts into consideration, we strongly urge the RFU to decline Wasps RFC?s application to play at Sixways Stadium. It would be unforgiveable if a club without any stadium or facilities, which has left behind vast debts and misery in Coventry, was given preferential treatment over our long-established club. The legacy of Cecil Duckworth, so important to everyone in Worcester, has been emasculated by both previous and current owners and we are determined that this must be reversed.

The working group are supportive of, and thankful for, the sentiment behind the RFU FAQ Document to ex-Warrior players released on 12th April. We agree with the regulations designed to prevent a club from effectively "buying a league position." We are against the Atlas plans to link up with Stourbridge RFC and hope the RFU do not permit them to progress.

I'll be honest: I find it hard to disagree with any of that. Very well stated.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

I can't disagree with it either.

It's not a nice feeling to no longer be particularly proud to be a Wasp.

[Lwasp]

The description of Cecil Duckworth's legacy being "emasculated" smacks of a desperate attempt to make this submission seem more intellectual. Did no-one proof-read it for them and point out that really doesn't mean what they think it means? The substance of the piece is accurate but includes all the same key phrases e.g. poaching a fan base, franchise, cuckoo club that were thrown about for the Coventry move.

I think the submission would be much stronger if it acknowledged the state of play Worcester are in and would still be in should Wasps not get permission to play there. The Supporters Trust should simply state that Wasps playing in Worcester does not meet the regulations and should be declined. The Trust would then have to accept there is no possibility of a Worcester phoenix club since they have also failed to meet the regulations. That is the end of the debate. Wasps playing at Sixways or not no longer has any bearing on Worcester's failure to play Championship Rugby next season given who the club and assets were sold to, the deadlines for compliance having passed and the regulations (and Wasps application for deferral being denied) making clear it is next season or not at all.

I guess it made them feel better to write the letter making it Wasps' fault their club isn't coming back, but it really isn't. Their argument can stand on its own merits by citing the regulations we are failing to meet and demonstrating why we aren't. The rest weakens those solid foundations IMHO.

[baldpaul101]

I agree with many of their points.
For me they let themselves down by the emotive language "cuckoo club" "franchise" "misery in Coventry" "preferential treatment" Stick to the facts!

They also ignore that its their new owners who don't want to attempt a Phoenix WWRFC, & not having Wasps as a tenant is unlikely to change that.
They also contradict themselves, if no one in the local area will support them, Wasps clearly arent going to buy a ready made fan base are they?

[Bloke in North Dorset]

It comes across to me as very dog-in-the-manger.

If Wasps don't play there will there be enough rent from the women and Worcester FC to maintain the stadium on the off chance that a WW phoenix club comes along in a few years and is successful enough to maintain the ground and pay off any debts incurred keeping it going in the meantime?

I have a lot of sympathy with their plight and I think they'd have been better off arguing that the RFU include sunset clauses that ensure we move out in a timely manner and maybe that the women get priority.

If the deal with Atlas falls through the outcome could be another proposed out of town shopping mall or logistics distribution centre for them to spend their time venting their anger and raising objections against and the end of all hope of a top men's rugby team in the area.

[will311293]

I don't disagree with their statement even if some strong language.

however, it feels like the Trust haven't considered the financial and economic challenges of running such a stadium and facilities incl. staffing them for game days.

Saw stats saying that in 2020 it cost Swansea/Ospreys ?2.7m to keep Liberty Stadium running (21k capacity) and this is before the increased living costs of playing staff, non playing staff and services plus energy costs increase.

Now 6ways in 11k so lets say half, thats still 1.85m roughly plus additional costs mentioned.

I can't believe that this can be generated by those clubs whilst paying staff/non-staff included.

Moreover, there seems to be a belief that Dimes will now swoop in and save WW with a shining light but that just feels so unlikely. He has his new role in Edinburgh plus yes he's a very kind and open bloke but hes also a canny businessman who no doubt will have to plan something to protect against all the challenges the phoenix club face.

I just don't see how WWST feel that just the phoenix club, the womens team and raiders is financially viable (even with events etc)

[NellyWellyWaspy]

I can't disagree with it either.

It's not a nice feeling to no longer be particularly proud to be a Wasp.

+1

I can, however, see a fudge coming down the line, which will be that Wasps receive 'temporary' permission to play there, subject to some provisos:

The first is that it be time limited. Given the lack of alternative 'suitable' stadia, New Wasps might argue the need for a 3, or maybe 4, year permission. A totally Phoenix WW team could not hope to be back in the Championship before then.

Second. New Wasps must build a new stadium, back within 'their' region (away from Worcester).

Third. New Wasps must retain and use Henley as their training ground, or build a new facility as part of their new build stadium.

Fourth. New Wasps must have submitted plans for the new stadium before the 24/25 season starts. This must include an actual planning application and HOA with the landowner.

I noticed on the Warriors board that the user Bumchin on that board is (he says he was secretary of Leamington FC - AKA Brakes - for 16 years). I think he was the match secretary who recently resigned, who was Richard Edy, of Redditch (according to LinkedIn). The same club who I said were hoping to be tenants at the new Warwick Community Stadium. He did reply to one of my posts to say my suggestion of Wasps moving there was utter tosh (well, words to that effect). He didn't explain why the project had gone cold, why Brakes had not said anything publicly for some time. Indeed, their website is currently down (probably coincidence, as it was up, but I see that their domain registration expired today. It looks to be hosted by a brand within the Newfold Digital Group, which is never a good sign. They are to web hosting as Delboy was to an upmarket department store.)

There was some mention of Brakes losing their stadium and I am pretty sure I saw talk of a planning application in Warwick DC for housing, (I can't find any planning application) but it was rejected (maybe at discussion phase) because the Harbury Lane/Fosse Way junction (at Chesterton) was too dangerous and needed upgrading to either a roundabout or traffic lights (the latter with pedestrian and cycle provision). And, right now, and due to last another year, massive road works are underway to build traffic lights there. It was an incredibly dangerous junction, with a LOT of accidents. My guess is, now those works are underway, the application to build housing there can be revived. In turn, that was why Brakes needed a new stadium. I am not sure who actually owns the current ground, but I doubt it is the club themselves (it isn't in their accounts), more likely a connected party, or even the Warwick District Council. One thing is sure, Brakes are in a parlous, but not dire, financial situation, and certainly could not offer any financial contribution to a new stadium, so any talk of it being 'theirs' is fluff.

What do the Council Cabinet minutes say about the Community Stadium site? The last mention I can see is from last July, when they were still looking for a developer (== funds), and keeping any discussion private. Also keeping Brakes and ward councillors 'in consultation'. Some of the other projects, like the new athletics track and footpaths, seem to be progressing, albeit slowly.

[InBetweenWasp]

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.

[Andywasp50]

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?

[NellyWellyWaspy]

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.

Agreed. Rugby debts may well prove to be very woolly to define in Court, which is where most of the significant debtors may end up going.

Add in a (reasonable) requirement for the debtor to minimise their losses (for example by getting another job, claiming benefits, claiming on insurance), that number may not be anywhere near as large as it was supposed. Especially if Wasps find a way to avoid paying player wages (and I bet that they will try), which must be a lot of the debt.

Wasps will likely put a deadline on any claims being made, after which they will not be considered, and make that quite short. Is this the first time a club has been in this position? Who decides what is a fair claim, is there an arbitration system, and so on? There is no legal contract or obligation, so Court action might be problematic. Only a legal definition of 'rugby creditor' would be accepted by a Court, and I doubt, for legal purposes, such a hard definition exists.

Like many of the RFU laws, they are seen to be doing the 'right' thing for the sport, whilst not actually doing anything of the sort.

Thus, I would argue, Atlas would have had similar advice to Wasps on this matter, and could have chosen to accept that requirement. But they did not accept it, and thus effectively killed Worcester Warriors. That is where the blame should lie, but Atlas have so far proved impervious to criticism, so, when no one is listening, the fans get angry at everyone in sight.

[RogerE]

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?

Since the Autumn I have managed to speak to several former Wasps players (and their families), and to one of the "names" that has been associated with the "phoenix-Wasps".

Although I hvaen't been given any information about the future that isn't already known, one thing has become apparent. Very few are blaming Derek - everyone appears to be blaming Eastwood, as he was the one who was tasked with just about everything to do with running the organisation. As stated he was the main mover in the relocation to Coventry, and it was him that persuaded the RFU and PRL that it was a great move for Rugby.

An interesting comment I had was that just before the meeting where everyone was told they were redundant, Stephen Vaughan, was telling players he had been told by his boss (Eastwood?) that everything was ok for the next few matches, and was seen to be as shocked as everyone when the administrators made their announcement.

[DGP Wasp]

]

I'll be honest: I find it hard to disagree with any of that. Very well stated.

Agree that it's hard to disagree with any of that.

However, I can't agree that it's very well stated. Strong on emotive language, speculation and rumour, but light on facts. Surely there is someone within the supporters' trust with some sort of legal/business background that could have composed a more professional submission?

[Neils]

I find I can't disagree with most WW fans who are as distraught as we are/were. However, I find the continual sniping from a vocal few (aided by certain repeat offenders from the SISU remnants) who seem to have continual stream of vective against anything Wasps is becoming counterproductive - in that I am losing sympathy.

It is OK and understandable to put together a paper to the RFU but to lower themselves to some of the contained comments, to my mind, reduces the arguement to sour grapes.

Surely they must be aware that their lovely new owners don't need rugby at the stadium now they have got it. They don't need to support or start a lower league WW. The Administrators gave them the land and for five whole years (as I understand it) they are not allowed to use it for any other purpose. After that who knows - my bet is a nice new Distribution Centre.

Do I want Wasps to go there - hell no (it is a 6 hour round trip without delays). It is a shithole place to get to. If Wasps land there will I go - yes because I support them. Mind you most away matches are far nearer so probably support with a ST that may not be used fully.

[Nigel Med]

]

I'll be honest: I find it hard to disagree with any of that. Very well stated.

Agree that it's hard to disagree with any of that.

However, I can't agree that it's very well stated. Strong on emotive language, speculation and rumour, but light on facts. Surely there is someone within the supporters' trust with some sort of legal/business background that could have composed a more professional submission?

I agree. It's so full of contradictions and rants that go off at a tangent that they've diluted the genuine message that Wasps application is apparently against RFU regulations (which are open to a degree of interpretation).

For example, they mention that Atlas have "no plans for a WW mens team to play at Sixways for the foreseeable future" but Wasps playing at Sixways would negatively "impact the prospect of a Phoenix Worcester team", one that they've just stated doesn't exist!

Wasps playing there would also be "to the detriment of pre-existing local clubs" But WW playing there wouldn't???

They have very short memories, if WW were to miraculously re-appear, there have been plenty of ground shares in the Premiership, Irish at The Stoop for example. Nobody was ranting about stealing supporters AFAIK.

I also love the "unforgivable if a club without any stadium or facilities, which has left behind vast debts and misery in Coventry..." Unlike WW who are a club without a stadium or facilities and left behind huge debts and misery in Worcester! Pot meet kettle.

And then "The legacy of Cecil Duckworth, so important to everyone in Worcester, has been emasculated by both previous and current owners and we are determined that this must be reversed" 100% agree but I thought this was an objection to Wasps, what has Cecil Duckworth's legacy got to do with us? we're just trying to find somewhere to play, admittedly not going about it in a very honourable fashion. Allegedly.

I'm certain that we're all completely sympathetic to the plight that Worcester Wanders and their supporters find themselves in but guys, pick your battles, we're not the cause of your problems, we face many of the same issues and in an ideal world would be playing against WW in the Championship next season. Sadly, that's almost certainly not going to happen, it may not happen for us so little point in making enemies of Wasps supporters.