rugbyunion
Latest News:
Come On You Warriors!

This message board is for all things Warriors' and Rugby.
When posting please be aware that posts may be read by youngsters and respect other posters.
Click Here for the Message Board Rules


Frammers
Fit for Purpose
Mantis Mirth (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 14:24
Who’d you rather have in charge at the top:

Greg Allen:
[www.linkedin.com]

or

Ed Griffiths:
[www.linkedin.com]

However, I do notice that Greg was president of the wine circle at Uni!

 
Patgadd
Re: Fit for Purpose
Patgadd (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 14:38
I really don't think that's very helpful. If it weren't for Greg Allen's continued generosity we might well be back in National League One or whatever it's called. Yes, it would seem that the players and the supporters would welcome Edward G with open arms, but let's not disrespect the family who kept us going at enormous financial cost to themselves.

 
usa warrior
Re: Fit for Purpose
usa warrior (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 14:47
Absolutely agree Patgadd and for the sake of perspective here folks, we do only have one side of the story here.

The Allens have plowed an awful lot of money into our collective hobby.

 
B-road
Re: Fit for Purpose
11 October, 2017 15:00
Quote:
usa warrior
Absolutely agree Patgadd and for the sake of perspective here folks, we do only have one side of the story here.
The Allens have plowed an awful lot of money into our collective hobby.

Couldn't agree more (apart from the spelling).

Two sides to every story and while the EG bid may be the best offer, it is entirely possible it isn't.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Fit for Purpose
West Brom Warrior (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 15:08
Well said Patgadd

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Fit for Purpose
knightstemplar (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 15:09
Yep lets not make anything personal

 
jaytee
Re: Fit for Purpose
jaytee (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 15:10
Totally agree that we should respect what the Allens have done for us. EG sells himself very well and gives a good case, but as KDDDD states, there are always two sides to a story. Just have to be patient and see how it all transpires.



JayTee

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Fit for Purpose
Faithful_City (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 15:39
Spot 0n PG, without the Allens we would probably not exist in our present form.

JP

 
TVM Rides Again....Again
Re: Fit for Purpose
TVM Rides Again (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 15:40
I agree with the above.

We don't want this turning into a board witch-hunt of the likes seen in 'the other game'

 
ROLLO on tour
Re: Fit for Purpose
ROLLO (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 15:42
+1 - but that is not to say that there is not some merit in what EG is proposing. What we don't know is what else may come on the table.

 
Offa
Re: Fit for Purpose
Offa (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 15:45
Agree entirely. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Allens.

 
Abmatt
Re: Fit for Purpose
Abmatt (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 16:08
Perhaps change the thread title to ‘right person to take us forward’

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Fit for Purpose
TeflonTed (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 16:52
Agree with the general sentiment that it is not right to write off the Allen's contribution in favour of yet another perceived saviour in the form of EG.

The reason so many here are willing to be convinced by his (EG's) very eloquent argument is simple.

However much we respect and acknowledge the Allen's financial input over the last few years we are where we are....and on the pitch it's not working......again.

For me, it's not simply a matter of EG's undoubted eloquence, it's his proven track record that counts.

 
FlipFlop
Re: Fit for Purpose
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 19:37
Yes, The Allen’s do not have to tell us anything of what is happening. But currently the lack of no update, together with EG’s interjection have created an information vacuum that is being filled with musings at every level.

The Allen’s have trodden where none of us have dared. They have subbed £16m of losses while folk on here moan about the price of tickets or a pint. I have backed a less fantasiful perspective on the numbers than many who decry the extortionate cost of their pastime.

They have done much to keep our ‘enjoyment’ alive in the city. I applaud that.

I just hope that they can get a proper deal sorted soon for their benefit and the good of the club.

 
shirelad
Re: Fit for Purpose
shirelad (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 19:45
Actually I think Mantis Mirth's stark comparison is interesting and relevant . From Linked In, I would guess that Greg must be all of 30 years old. Limited business experience but has the backing of his father. I doubt he has picked up a rugby ball in earnest but appreciate this isn't important to some. Overall though, does Greg really have the right credentials to take us forward?

Ed Griffiths on the other hand has a stellar record where we would need and want him to have one. With the Saracens template is there anyone out there more qualified to take us forward?

I am grateful for the Allens' investment. However, this is tempered. We know the board has walked away from key signings because it felt it was "paying over the odds." My suspicion is the board will invest but just enough to keep us in the premiership. The current impasse isn't about trying to find the right buyer for the supporters ,club nor Worcester. It's about finding the right buyer for the Allens . Whilst this is completely their prerogative let's not kid ourselves - the Allens investment isn't selfless .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2017 19:54 by shirelad.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Fit for Purpose
West Brom Warrior (IP Logged)
11 October, 2017 21:36
Just in defence of Greg Allen he only sits on the board, he has left the running of the club to the people employed by the club from what I am aware while he attends board meetings he generally went with the decisions reached by the board members more involved in the club.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Fit for Purpose
Fiver (IP Logged)
12 October, 2017 08:51
Whilst the information vacuum goes on, we'll make it our business to imagine up all sorts of scenarios. This is life, and if the Allen's take any offence then that will speak volumes.

Let's not kid ourselves that the Allens have "lost" £16 million on the club. They have "invested" this money and as such I'd suggest (see paragraph above) that the EG bid didn't come close to matching/exceeding this amount.

It's still business, and that's measured in pound coins. Best intentions will always remain as intentions, but the pound coin is, and will always be, king.

 
Guerrier
Re: Fit for Purpose
Guerrier (IP Logged)
12 October, 2017 09:09
Greg clearly hasn’t got the rugby CV of Ed, but it’s not a Board members job to run rugby, you don’t want at owner like Bruce Craig at Bath trying to pay Director of Rugby. What Greg has done is cleared up the club for the right owner. In the past 2 years he sorted the freehold (an issue for 20 years) bought more expansion land, built world class training facilities, 3 new pitches, cleared bank debt and developed academy house etc- would Ed have done all this- to sort out the club long term.

You have hope the DoR sorts out the rugby, that’s there expertise. Dean failed as he lost interest when RFU came calling with a soft job- there was no interference from the Board.

 
usa warrior
Re: Fit for Purpose
usa warrior (IP Logged)
12 October, 2017 09:21
Love to know what your connections are Guerrier ("Warrior").

Thanks for the good/reassuring information.

 
Bushi
Re: Fit for Purpose
Bushi (IP Logged)
12 October, 2017 09:22
As has been already said "We've only heard one side of the story", I can't help but wonder what we haven't been told about EG's offer? In the WEN he states “In our carefully constructed model, with conservative revenue projections, the club would within two years lose a sustainable £532k per year." He hasn't elaborated on how. I wonder whether this is the reason their/his offer was rejected. Does his plan look at redeveloping some of the playing fields, a hotel, et al. Is that why their offer was rejected? Does the board think it would be detrimental to the future of the club? I also have to say that the Allen's could have just taken the deal and walked away but they haven't they're still here and are financing the club. I think that must say a lot about their integrity.

 
BrumBrum
Re: Fit for Purpose
BrumBrum (IP Logged)
12 October, 2017 17:22
I still think the £16m loss is a bit of a red herring.
We forget that most of it appears to have been on one off costs for infrastructure, such as pitches, buying WRFC out, training facilities etc.
I know a lot would have been on other costs, but maybe a fair few million will not be there again.
Thus loss to £0.5m in a couple of years sounds very possible.

 
Patgadd
Re: Fit for Purpose
Patgadd (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 09:13
Quote:
shirelad
The current impasse isn't about trying to find the right buyer for the supporters ,club nor Worcester. It's about finding the right buyer for the Allens . Whilst this is completely their prerogative let's not kid ourselves - the Allens investment isn't selfless .

Just for the record, the Allens will not make a penny out of the deal, whoever buys the club.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Fit for Purpose
Fiver (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 09:54
Does the club include the freehold?

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: Fit for Purpose
knightstemplar (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 10:14
To get 51% of a Rugby Club including the freehold to the land and property isn't a bad deal if you're not putting any money into the deal?

The question would be I guess if after 2 years the suggested loss/break even doesn't materialise (for whatever reason) will 'the investor' keep investing?

If not we are back to square 1?

 
FlipFlop
Re: Fit for Purpose
FlipFlop (IP Logged)
13 October, 2017 10:50
BrumBrum

Take a look at publically available Financial information surrounding WRFC Trading for the last few years.

Investment in the pitch would not go via the Profit and Loss account, but the Balance Sheet. Reorganisational costs or other "one offs" can be reported as Exceptional / Extraordinary items as part of the Profit and Loss, but these are normally declared after the Profit or Loss line. For instance, last years accounts suggested we made a profit of £13m, but this was after the extraordinary write off of £20m debt / other loans made by A N Other. Once you take this out of the equation, the real business of rugby at the club made a loss of £6m- £7m, broadly consistent with losses over the preceding years, even those before The Allens took charge.

In my opinion, it is not a red herring, but a harsh reality of running the club, and any offer suggesting we can and will get to a £0.5m loss for the next 2 years would seems to be relatively attractive. However, how that result could be achieved would be intriguing to establish, as it is not merley via the lease of extrensive swathes of turf, 4G and tarmac around Sixways IMO. I'll leave that to the bidders to sort and advise.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?