Quantcast

Deadline
Discussion started by Faithful_City , 13 December, 2017 08:37
Deadline
Faithful_City 13 December, 2017 08:37
What are the odds we hear nothing by Sunday 17th?

What are the odds we hear nothing by 1st Jan 2018?

JP

Re: Deadline
Offa 13 December, 2017 08:54
I wouldn't offer you any, JP.

Re: Deadline
A38 13 December, 2017 09:14
I cannot think that we will hear nothing by 1 January.

We may not hear anything concrete and may only be told that negotiations are continuing but it would be very unwise, in PR terms, if nothing is said at all.

There has been too much speculation, not to mention CD's contribution, for nothing to be acceptable.

Mind you wasn't it old Lear who says"Nothing comes of nothing"?

Re: Deadline
Moyles 13 December, 2017 09:21
Do you understand how negotiations work? Either with recruiting for a senior role, or, the sale/ purchase of a business? It is a time consuming process. We recently purchased a supplier, 1/10th the size of our business - we agreed terms with the owners of the supplier. We agreed price, payment conditions, they gave us free reign on the DD process - it still took 4 months in the hands of our respective legal teams to get the deal over the line.

The board have no right to disclose any information until it worth doing so, no matter how frustrating many of the fans believe it is.

Re: Deadline
Offa 13 December, 2017 10:23
Understood Moyles. The worry will be the exodus of non-contracted players. However, I do concede that ownership is a much more important thing to get right. Teams can be rebuilt, granted that it would take a long time.

Re: Deadline
TVM Rides Again 13 December, 2017 11:34
Players would be treated as key employees and kept in the loop - and asked to keep quiet.

My business recently merged. Us rank and file were kept in the dark - but the big hitters would have known

Re: Deadline
FlipFlop 13 December, 2017 12:29
Wouldn't expect any news.

We're not intrinsic to any deal.

I'm reliably informed by fellow posters, that we are not entitled to updates until a formal announcement is made by the club.

Sixways communication is meh at best, so not likely to issue any 'holding' style message to the supporters to keep them in the loop.

My guess was January 2018 for an announcement, if at all, based on the conjecture over suitors at present.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 13 December, 2017 12:42
I absolutely agree we are not intrinsic to a deal, however our numbers and support are essential to future success.

If the club declared the deal to be done by the end of the week. They have set an expectation and as customers the worst thing any company can do is not meet that expectation.

It is absolutely expected that paying supporters of any club would be asking(demanding) to be kept informed what is happening to THEIR club. If the club are not prepared then once again it shows lack of organisation and business maturity.

JP

Re: Deadline
knightstemplar 13 December, 2017 12:54
Either of the two reported potential deals will be a disaster as far as what is 'the best' for the Club is concerned.

Only Cecil putting a holding consortium together would save the day now.

So unless the announcement concerns Cecil there is not much to wait for.

Re: Deadline
backrow 13 December, 2017 13:01
It's far to cold for kilts at Sixways, deal set up for better weather !!(Sm159)

Re: Deadline
knightstemplar 13 December, 2017 14:09
Will there be anything to announce?

There is no way the RFU will sanction another Union owning or running a Premiership Club. Its just not credible.

The only option if Allen wants his money is the McCoy/McCory bid if he can increse the bid/get hold of the money.

As people have researched that looks highly unlikely as it can be suggested there is still debt at other ventures.

Both these are quite desperate to sell negotiations. Both look unachievable.

Re: Deadline
FlipFlop 13 December, 2017 16:18
The club appeared to be swift in announcing EG bid was off the table.

At present, it is not clear what bid(s) is / are still in progress to anyone remotely bothered about the whole situation.

Although not eye catching comments, a brief one liner to the effect of "The club is still conducting discussions with a number of potential purchasers of the club and these discussions are going through due process".

Yes, it doesn't give up pertinent information which i understand will not be put in the public domain until a deal is concluded, but it does at least confirm that something is still happening, or if needs be, "that the clubs owners have been unsuccessful in finding suitable offers to purchase the club".

Currently we are none the wiser as to whether we have Millionaires, Crooks or local Business Gentry as our owners. I'll sleep in not knowing, but it seems odd that perhaps the club hopes that we don't give a chuff as to who the next owners might be, so as we (maybe just me?) don't keep on about it.

Re: Deadline
Old 7 13 December, 2017 19:22
We hear that Allen won't sell to Griffiths but he would sell to Cecil. So the simple answer to me is for Cecil to buy the club and immediately sell to Griffiths. It could all be done by next season with everyone knowing well in advance what is planned. Some of Griffiths people could even be put on the board under Cecil to aid confidence that the deal will go through.

Other than Allen refusing to sell to Cecil if he knew the plan am I missing something? Seems obvious to me.

Re: Deadline
Superted1 13 December, 2017 19:36
Old 7 thinking the same thing earlier today, just wonder how under gregs skin ed g got, and whether this course of action would save enough face for it to happen.

Re: Deadline
knightstemplar 13 December, 2017 19:40
Quote:
Old 7
We hear that Allen won't sell to Griffiths but he would sell to Cecil. So the simple answer to me is for Cecil to buy the club and immediately sell to Griffiths. It could all be done by next season with everyone knowing well in advance what is planned. Some of Griffiths people could even be put on the board under Cecil to aid confidence that the deal will go through.
Other than Allen refusing to sell to Cecil if he knew the plan am I missing something? Seems obvious to me.

Obvious solution

Re: Deadline
usa warrior 13 December, 2017 19:40
SRU would, presumably, also need a partner. Could Cecil’s consortium be in bed with them?

Re: Deadline
A38 13 December, 2017 19:58
Quote:
usa warrior
SRU would, presumably, also need a partner. Could Cecil’s consortium be in bed with them?

Actually, I've not forgotten what Bolsover said at that meeting: that Allen might lease the rugby assets whilst still retaining the freehold.

I can't see the SRU being interested in anything other than the rugby assets. That's what presumably they are in for. They won't be interested in building a hotel and I wonder if they would be really bothered about the conference / entertainment side. Although that would provide income, I suppose, it could be run as an entirely separate business.

Just taking on the rugby assets would not be as expensive as buying the whole lot albeit that they would have to make, I presume, an "interesting" up front payment.

But I do accept that having a partner would make sense as it would reduce the cost of 100% of Sixways and perhaps mollify the RFU as well if they only took a minority interest.

SRU is not my idea of a best option - but it may turn out to be the least worst.

Re: Deadline
usa warrior 13 December, 2017 20:01
I’d take “least worst” if half of what we’re hearing is true!

Re: Deadline
FlipFlop 13 December, 2017 20:53
Can’t imagine Allen Jnr took kindly to EG’s ‘consultancy’ on how to run a successful sporting business. Think that may have been the first irk. Possibly used non disclosure of backers as an excuse to tell EG to get lost. Does anyone know if Greg still has a nose on his face or did he cut it off?

Re: Deadline
knightstemplar 14 December, 2017 05:36
Young Mr Allen might be getting a reality check here.

Frankly I'm amazed that the two bids are being considered unless as suggested there is nothing else!

The RFU could still block the SRU owning/leasing the rugby at Warriors anyway yet.

As eluded to before 'the best' for the Club, Supporters, local Community would now be for Cecil and Co to buy it back short term and when/if ready to move on (again) sit down with EG and his investor and do the deal.

Re: Deadline
Moyles 14 December, 2017 07:05
Quote:
knightstemplar

As eluded to before 'the best' for the Club, Supporters, local Community would now be for Cecil and Co to buy it back short term and when/if ready to move on (again) sit down with EG and his investor and do the deal.

How can you possible know that is the best for the club when you don’t know all of the facts? You have taken what has been posted in various press articles and come to a conclusion that you have more fact based knowledge to sell an asset you have no ownership of.

How quick people are to criticise The Allens for the way they have handled this process - when there are no facts made public about the manner in which they have conducted the sale process.
Let’s remember they have spent their own money paying off the debt over the last 3 years, they haven’t borrowed it against any of the assets like the Glaziers at Man Utd - it is no surprise they want out with attitude if some of the fans.

Re: Deadline
knightstemplar 14 December, 2017 07:20
Quote:
Moyles
Quote:
knightstemplar

As eluded to before 'the best' for the Club, Supporters, local Community would now be for Cecil and Co to buy it back short term and when/if ready to move on (again) sit down with EG and his investor and do the deal.

How can you possible know that is the best for the club when you don’t know all of the facts? You have taken what has been posted in various press articles and come to a conclusion that you have more fact based knowledge to sell an asset you have no ownership of.

How quick people are to criticise The Allens for the way they have handled this process - when there are no facts made public about the manner in which they have conducted the sale process.
Let’s remember they have spent their own money paying off the debt over the last 3 years, they haven’t borrowed it against any of the assets like the Glaziers at Man Utd - it is no surprise they want out with attitude if some of the fans.

Do YOU know the fscts then??????????

Re: Deadline
Abmatt 14 December, 2017 07:23
Quote:
Faithful_City
It is absolutely expected that paying supporters of any club would be asking(demanding) to be kept informed what is happening to THEIR club. If the club are not prepared then once again it shows lack of organisation and business maturity.

JP

I’m sorry but no. You have no right to be kept informed as all you are is a customer, not an investor.

That would be like me asking to be kept informed of Tesco’s dealings because I shopped their once.

If Greg Allen wanted he could sell the infrastructure and freehold, dissolve the club and their is nothing we could do to stop him.

I’d like to know what is going on, but have resigned myself that until the club want to say anything, they won’t.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 14 December, 2017 07:30
Quite correct Moyles, however it is this lack of information and knowledge that has created all this speculation on who may or may not own OUR club. Afterall the owners are transient and are custodians of OUR club.

What information has been posted up in our debate about the possible buyers is pretty accurate as far as can be investigated.

As far as spending their own money the 10’s of thousands I have invested in the club is also out of my own pocket. As a pensioner who has worked for 50 years that is a huge percentage of my net worth. On top of which I have a huge emotional and physical investment in OUR club.

I am very grateful for the Allen’s investment but that does not excuse them anything.

JP

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 14 December, 2017 07:36
Abmatt I disagree.

We have invested much into the club, as a debenture holder I have invested a little extra as have 100’s of other denture holders. That is why the club use to hold debenture meetings to inform us of their plans.

We are not just customers we are their reason for being.

JP

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 14 December, 2017 08:54
Quote:
knightstemplar
Quote:
Moyles
Quote:
knightstemplar

As eluded to before 'the best' for the Club, Supporters, local Community would now be for Cecil and Co to buy it back short term and when/if ready to move on (again) sit down with EG and his investor and do the deal.

How can you possible know that is the best for the club when you don’t know all of the facts? You have taken what has been posted in various press articles and come to a conclusion that you have more fact based knowledge to sell an asset you have no ownership of.

How quick people are to criticise The Allens for the way they have handled this process - when there are no facts made public about the manner in which they have conducted the sale process.
Let’s remember they have spent their own money paying off the debt over the last 3 years, they haven’t borrowed it against any of the assets like the Glaziers at Man Utd - it is no surprise they want out with attitude if some of the fans.

Do YOU know the fscts then??????????

No of course he doesn’t, and he says so. And neither do you, which is essentially what he’s saying.

Re: Deadline
Patgadd 14 December, 2017 08:57
Quote:
Faithful_City
..... as have 100’s of other denture holders.
JP

Got crowns, me

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 14 December, 2017 09:03
Quote:
Faithful_City
Abmatt I disagree.
We have invested much into the club, as a debenture holder I have invested a little extra as have 100’s of other denture holders. That is why the club use to hold debenture meetings to inform us of their plans.

We are not just customers we are their reason for being.

JP

Oh come on JP, I can hear the violin section tuning up!

“The reason for their being”? .......Really......wasn’t it just 15 blokes who fancied a game in 1870 something or other....and it just sort of rolled on from there.

And did debenture holders really invest their little extra for anything much more than a decent seat, (with extra padding) a private bar, a few do’s which the proles couldn’t attend and a posh badge on a lanyard?

No, we’re customers plain and simple. Worcester Warriors as a pro side bears little or no relation to what it used to be even 20/25 years ago.

If I want club feel I’ll pop into Droitwich for a top up.

Re: Deadline
p1umb 14 December, 2017 10:05
Quote:
TT
Re: Deadline new
TeflonTed (IP Logged)
14 December, 2017 09:03
Quote:
Faithful_City
Abmatt I disagree.
We have invested much into the club, as a debenture holder I have invested a little extra as have 100’s of other denture holders. That is why the club use to hold debenture meetings to inform us of their plans.

We are not just customers we are their reason for being.

JP

Oh come on JP, I can hear the violin section tuning up!

“The reason for their being”? .......Really......wasn’t it just 15 blokes who fancied a game in 1870 something or other....and it just sort of rolled on from there.

And did debenture holders really invest their little extra for anything much more than a decent seat, (with extra padding) a private bar, a few do’s which the proles couldn’t attend and a posh badge on a lanyard?

No, we’re customers plain and simple. Worcester Warriors as a pro side bears little or no relation to what it used to be even 20/25 years ago.

If I want club feel I’ll pop into Droitwich for a top up.



HEAR HEAR TT

Re: Deadline
Abmatt 14 December, 2017 10:34
Quote:
Faithful_City
Abmatt I disagree.
We have invested much into the club, as a debenture holder I have invested a little extra as have 100’s of other denture holders. That is why the club use to hold debenture meetings to inform us of their plans.

We are not just customers we are their reason for being.

JP

But being a debenture holder doesn’t give you the right to know the deepest darkest financial dealings nor does it give you a seat at the table.

It gives you what has been alluded to above in recognition of the financial commitment you made being a debenture holder.

If it ever came into being that the Sixways site was generating big profits in other areas that could sustain the club then supporter attendance becomes even less relevant as the crowds aren’t required.

I think at times comments on this forum sound as if people think they have a sense of entitlement, which they actually don’t. I still stand by my opinion that it is a business and we are the customers.

There is no doubt though that we have all invested a lot emotionally into the club over the years.

Re: Deadline
Freypal 14 December, 2017 13:40
Agree with this... supporters are customers. You buy a ticket or debenture in exchange for goods and services. Be it a seat for a one off game or a block of games. That is the extent of the club's contract and duty with the supporters.

Clearly as a customer we would like to feel in the loop but there are likely very good reasons why nothing has been said. I cannot believe the club would actively want to exclude and annoy people. If they could say anything I'm sure they would.

Having said the above I would of course love to know what the heck is going on....

Re: Deadline
ROLLO 14 December, 2017 14:05
There is now no such thing as a debenture holder only a style of ST i.e. Platinum , Gold etc.,
I am in broad agreement with Abmatt.
Any good business will keep its customers informed , if it dosn't then customers have a choice in the long term. The current situation is beyond any explanation I can give and so |I plan to say little or nothing until we have concrete news , when that will be I have no idea.

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 14 December, 2017 14:38
Rollo we should start a small exclusive sub-group of Posters Who Really Don’t Know.

Or similar......better title/acronym anyone?

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 14 December, 2017 14:42
Massively
Uninformed
Supporters
wHo
Really
Ought to
Obfuscate
More
Seriously

The Mushrooms.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 14 December, 2017 15:18
Aha, I know those guys in Mushroom Troop, what a bunch of...

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 14 December, 2017 17:00
......stalkers?

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 14 December, 2017 17:14
Close

Re: Deadline
Latecomer 14 December, 2017 20:28
Quote:
TeflonTed
Rollo we should start a small exclusive sub-group of Posters Who Really Don’t Know.
Or similar......better title/acronym anyone?

Can I join your sub-group Ted ? (please) I do like your style.
It won't be so small a group then ......

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 14 December, 2017 21:20
Quote:
Latecomer
Quote:
TeflonTed
Rollo we should start a small exclusive sub-group of Posters Who Really Don’t Know.
Or similar......better title/acronym anyone?

Can I join your sub-group Ted ? (please) I do like your style.
It won't be so small a group then ......

The “we don’t know” sub-group is small but exclusive.

Anyone who has previously assured us that Harry Thacker/DylanHartley etc etc are nailed on joiners is excluded.

I think that puts you in!

Ps....Reggie, his ghosts, and all re-incarnations are definitely banned. I’ve fallen out with Reggie.

Re: Deadline
ROLLO 14 December, 2017 21:31
I like small exclusive groups especially if no one knows more than anyone else.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 14 December, 2017 21:47
Oh my goodness a clique is being set up, but if you know anything about anything you are excluded.

I was taught at school to be inquisitive, ask questions about anything you don’t understand, never ever close your mind, soak up the knowledge around you.

Maybe Pol Pot and the Luddites would be leading members of the group.

Nope I am not a member and do not wish to become a member.

JP

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 14 December, 2017 22:05
I think most people will have taken it tongue in cheek JP, you know, a bit like the news that SRU were relocating Wuss to London.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 14 December, 2017 22:24
So have I but I thought I would act like some others for once

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 14 December, 2017 22:39
I think we’re all a bit nervous......

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 15 December, 2017 06:54
Agreed TT and probably a little emotional.

Re: Deadline
vigorniensis 15 December, 2017 07:09
Just as a matter of interest can anyone enlighten me as to why the Allens bought into the club?

Re: Deadline
centrethere 15 December, 2017 08:46
Investors and investors usually want a return. Does the annual report list their % shareholding and the others? As the books are said to be debt free it must be a share sale

Re: Deadline
FlipFlop 15 December, 2017 09:07
Think there was the emotional attachment as Mr Allen Snr was said to be a Warriors supporter prior to the deal.

In this respect there may have been a philanthropic element to the purchase, with DR promising a return to the Prem and maybe a naive expectation that once back, the financials would come, and ensure that the club was in a good place.

The financials haven't happened and so the investment looks like a financial plughole.

As for investing for a return, i think recent conjecture on the state of other clubs finances suggests that to seek a return in Rugby club ownership would be naive.

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 15 December, 2017 09:22
Announcement day then?

I’m meeting a friend for coffee in the most unlikely venue of Tesco’s Warndon, not a place I would ever usually visit, but the parking is so much easier than the hospital where his wife is having tests, and I’m told there’s no phone signal.

Good.

I’m in wait and see mode.

Re: Deadline
Patgadd 15 December, 2017 09:26
FlipFlop is right; David Allen, Worcestershire-borm, was always a huge fan and used to fly from his home in Switzerland every week to watch the match. He wanted to put a large sum into the coffers, but didn't want a directorship. Cecil told him that, since he had put up much more money than all the other investors combined, he really had to be on the board. To cut a long story short, Cecil now has only a three percent share, and as we all know, Greg took over from his dad a few years ago. He clearly doesn't have the commitment his old man had, and wants out. I still cling to the belief that, whilst being fed up with dishing out the geld, he wants the best for the club, and so will not be surprised if neither Dell Boy McCrory nor the SRU are the successful bidders.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15/12/2017 09:27 by Patgadd.

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 15 December, 2017 09:28
Which leaves us hoping that Cecil will revisit his back-up consortium plan.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 15 December, 2017 09:40
PG, I am in complete agreement with you it will be neither.

I feel like a little boy who knows his Christmas present is under the tree but is not allowed to touch it.

JP

Re: Deadline
Freypal 15 December, 2017 10:38
I really do hope it's neither.

Personally I believe the SRU deal is a non starter. Given what happened with Gloucester and Altrad being vetod by PRL there's no way they'd sanction a foreign union investment.

But with whats been stated about exclusivity for McCrory I'm struggling to see what else can happen.

Re: Deadline
usa warrior 15 December, 2017 10:50
I agree re the SRU deal - can't see how that could ever fully happen.

Also wouldn't hold your breath for today...

Re: Deadline
Sheldon 15 December, 2017 11:25
I wouldn't be surprised if we heard nothing today except maybe talks are continuing. It seems to me the two options doing the rounds make the sale look fairly desperate which it shouldn't really be. If I were Edward G I would be watching this very closely and ready to step in at a moments notice.

This is more about the negotiations than the DD which is fairly simple for a business this size and shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks.

Re: Deadline
Freypal 15 December, 2017 11:33
The worrying part is the talk of 21 players out of contract lookong elsewhere if something isn't resolved this year however... to me that is the motivator for haste.

Re: Deadline
usa warrior 15 December, 2017 11:45
The question is, are we prepared to lose some of those 21 players in order to get the best deal for the club?

Re: Deadline
FlipFlop 15 December, 2017 12:04
I guess a query exists over the exact number ' up for grabs'.

Hogg says earlier in the week that players are being kept in the loop regarding off field matters, so it isn't affecting them.

GG has mentioned that talks with players have been / are underway.

There will be a cluster who unfortunately, by 1st January anyway, will know their future fate, and so will be able to sound out other opportunities.

Yeap, we don't want all of the 'family silver' being flogged or lost. If a player or Agent wants a move, generally they will force it whether a club is undecided on ownership, safe in the Prem or otherwise.

Even if news of the club being sold was known before next Friday, i doubt we'd see 20 players sign on for 'undisclosed length deals' during the following week.

It is one very long game of Poker for all involved...including us.

Re: Deadline
Sheldon 15 December, 2017 17:37
Probably not today then given the time.

Re: Deadline
Sheldon 17 December, 2017 11:07
[www.scotsman.com]

Some strong credibility to the story but acknowledged as unlikely to succeed. The problem is this could drag on a long time before it fails which would be a very poor outcome.

Re: Deadline
Freypal 17 December, 2017 12:30
The other thing the article fails to articulate is that whilst the AP has 'healthy' crowd figures, warriors are toward the bottom of the league in attendance terms. And in reality if this became a Scotland feeder enclave then how many people are honestly going to pay week in week out to turn up and watch? Also this would likely lead to less sponsorship too.

This then makes the financial hole even worse. I just don't understand their motives. They wound up the Borders a few years back. Imagine how their old fans will feel. Shut down as they weren't financially viable yet the SRU want to buy a financial black home in England?

Personally I still think it's doomed before it starts as per the Altrad Gloucester precedent.

Re: Deadline
Moyles 17 December, 2017 12:59
I guess the question we need to ask is not who can afford to run the club as is but who is going to put a package together that will generate enough revenue to sustain The current position.
I suspect the answer lies in a group of people who will significantly develop off field activities while maintaining a steady investment in the rugby - but no reliance on the revenue generatored from it.
Something significant has to change with the current activities of the group - it isn’t sustainable and isn’t an investment.

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 17 December, 2017 13:28
We must understand that the business people with sufficient assets to even begin to contemplate taking on Warriors are not simpletons.

Of course they know how much it will cost, and of course they know how much it currently loses. People on here keep ticking on about “investment “ in Warriors, do they think for one moment that any potential purchaser thinks he (or she) is likely to actually make any money in the near future?

We will end up being run by someone who has the best interest of the rugby operation as their driving motivation, along with their best view of how to minimise losses by off the field activities, including maybe, just maybe, a hotel and conference centre development. But their priority will be a DoR at the head of a revitalised structure that will deliver a team that actually starts climbing the table. Anyone who does purchase must believe this, otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

Talk of asset strippers who just want the acerage is, in my humble opinion, way off the mark.

We’ve had plan A, not sure about plan B, maybe, just maybe, a new Cecil led consortium may yet emerge.

Keep calm, keep the faith, wait and see.

Re: Deadline
Freypal 17 December, 2017 16:30
I agree with most of what you say TT however on your point of best interest of the rugby operation, this is where I struggle with the SRU option. Their reasoning has to be and indeed has been stated as being for the best interests of the Scottish game.

I completely agree that any takeover will and should be based upon releasing the commercial potential of the sideways site. As stated on another thread this is the key to Wasps spending...

Again like you say, the decision makers aren't daft so I wait in hope that other deals are on the table that haven't been announced or leaked. Such as a CD consortium or other... fingers crossed.

Re: Deadline
Latecomer 17 December, 2017 19:40
Quote:
TeflonTed
We must understand that the business people with sufficient assets to even begin to contemplate taking on Warriors are not simpletons.
Of course they know how much it will cost, and of course they know how much it currently loses. People on here keep ticking on about “investment “ in Warriors, do they think for one moment that any potential purchaser thinks he (or she) is likely to actually make any money in the near future?

We will end up being run by someone who has the best interest of the rugby operation as their driving motivation, along with their best view of how to minimise losses by off the field activities, including maybe, just maybe, a hotel and conference centre development. But their priority will be a DoR at the head of a revitalised structure that will deliver a team that actually starts climbing the table. Anyone who does purchase must believe this, otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

Talk of asset strippers who just want the acerage is, in my humble opinion, way off the mark.

We’ve had plan A, not sure about plan B, maybe, just maybe, a new Cecil led consortium may yet emerge.

Keep calm, keep the faith, wait and see.

Ted, thank you for a few words of sanity amongst a sea of speculation, rumour and mass panic.
#Keepthefaith

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 17 December, 2017 22:00
Quote:
Teflon Ted


We will end up being run by someone who has the best interest of the rugby operation as their driving motivation


Why will we?

JP

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 18 December, 2017 00:38
Quote:
Faithful_City
Quote:
Teflon Ted


We will end up being run by someone who has the best interest of the rugby operation as their driving motivation


Why will we?

JP

Why would we not.

It’s just not that interesting as projects go otherwise. 50 acres ish on the outskirts of Worcester, where just over the road the hugely promoted “science park” site (5000 jobs promised , remember?) consists of several warehouses yet to be leased.

No, whoever takes on WW will really think they can make it work as a premiership rugby club, be they ever so misguided!

Re: Deadline
woodywuss 18 December, 2017 00:55
Is there more scope and capacity for the non rugby side? Concerts,conferencing,use of the pitch etc? Surely being on a (soon to be improved) motorway junction helps with accessibility ? Soon being the two year version.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 18 December, 2017 06:37
We would TT, but that is not the question.

Why will we “be run by someone who has the best interest of rugby as their driving motivation”

That is nowhere as certain as you make out.

I would say there is more chance of being taken over by an asset stripper because our assets are worth a lot of silver shekels.

JP

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 18 December, 2017 08:06
Depends how you view the assets JP.

If the Allens thought there was any real chance of residential or commercial development in the short term, beyond the already mooted hotel, they’d either do it themselves, or price it accordingly.

Others have mentioned covenants on the land, I haven’t looked at the detail of this but accept their word.

Basic point being you fear asset stripping as a real possibility, I don’t.

It’s a judgement call, we’ll just have to wait and see.

And in the meantime, look forward to Friday evening.....I like Friday games.

Mrs Ted doesn’t.

Re: Deadline
Drutz 18 December, 2017 12:01
You may need a surveyors opinion over this. I do keep hearing about these 50 acres is the Sixway's site actually 50 plus acres?

If not where are they getting the figure from, bear in mind the Warriors do not own any land across the canal except for one pitch so would the whole site, removing the land owned by David Lloyd and the Duckworth Trust, be 50 plus acres?



Forced to retire by the RFU

Re: Deadline
TeflonTed 18 December, 2017 12:15
Quote:
Drutz
You may need a surveyors opinion over this. I do keep hearing about these 50 acres is the Sixway's site actually 50 plus acres?
If not where are they getting the figure from, bear in mind the Warriors do not own any land across the canal except for one pitch so would the whole site, removing the land owned by David Lloyd and the Duckworth Trust, be 50 plus acres?

Good point. I refer to “50 acres” only as referred to by others. I have no firm knowledge of the land owned, but don’t think it changes the basic point.

Which is, amongst all the other uncertainty, I’m not worried about asset strippers trying to free off the land for residential or commercial development.

Re: Deadline
Redditch Crowd 18 December, 2017 12:17
Large development of offices and warehousing pending on the 'gateway' site the other side of the motorway island makes the arguments 'easier' on this side to allow development... Depot next to South Stand has been a development opportunity in waiting for years (it will be relocated)... part of the remaining land between the ground (s) and the M5 will be released as development land too and I suspect Section 106 agreements (developers bungs to Local Authorities that are planning consent dependent) will provide further assistance to WRFC at some stage... well, that's what I think anyway...

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 18 December, 2017 12:22
Take the land and hold it, put no money into warriors apart from income streams then in 5, 10, 15yrs it will be worth a small fortune. As sure as eggs are eggs with the growth of Worcester you will be able to develop the land.

Same happened at Bevere and enabled WRFC to purchase Sixways.

JP

Re: Deadline
TVM Rides Again 18 December, 2017 14:06
Speaking as someone who works in property - 15 years is two property market cycles away probably - and the same in planning cycles.

Property development is still a pretty risky business, it's why it returns 20-25% - not the 5% - 7.5% you get from a completed and let development.

I think the nugget of information we can talk about here, JP, is small fortune. If I were in development, and I was going to tie up £16 million of my money for a decade - I would want a BIG fortune at the other end.

Also, as it stands, if you are after the land and nothing more - the club is not an income stream. It is a burden.

Maybe...MAYBE it would look good on the balance sheet, and that is attractive - but if your end goal is developing land - there are less risky ways to make more money in a shorter period of time - I promise you.

Everyone is talking about sixways as if its the last viable development site in the country - but its a big world out there with lots of opportunity. People serious about property and development know that - with the best will - the fans world, with regards to the club, is an awful lot smaller - and we only have eyes for this.

And this is where this idea has come from.

If one of my clients was going to tie up £16 million, in a parcel of land, with a green belt designation and zero certainty on its planning future - for up to 15 years - I would refer them to a psychiatrist.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 18 December, 2017 14:18
Fair enough TVM, I feel a little more relieved that this is not going to happen.

However if it does and we are both still around the drinks are on you(Sm128)

JP

Re: Deadline
West Brom Warrior 18 December, 2017 14:33
Thank you TVM your post is 100% sense


Quote:
TVM Rides Again

If one of my clients was going to tie up £16 million, in a parcel of land, with a green belt designation and zero certainty on its planning future - for up to 15 years - I would refer them to a psychiatrist.


Now if I could refer you to my Aunt who thinks I should be spending money on a land locked parcel of land with no access rights to develop it for planning then that would be great. She wants me to pay for it then take it off the sale value when sold (which will be never).

Re: Deadline
TVM Rides Again 18 December, 2017 14:33
Duly agreed JP.


Land value in accounts and in reality can differ quite a bit.

For example, I strongly suspect (but do not know for a fact) that the stadium is in the accounts at its Depreciated Replacement Cost - I know that this method is frowned on by the RICS and probably the accounting standards too - but I don't know how else to value a building with no realistic market on its own. So it'd be how much it would cost to build, depreciated at a set rate to reflect its age.

The stadium site itself, would have some value - put the stadium would cost a fortune to pull down, so is unlikely to fetch a massive value because of this extraordinary (as in unusual, not amazing) cost.

The rest of the site - I believe - is green belt? That'll be £20,000 an acre tops. Probably less as there is so much of it, and there is a concession for the sheer quantity.

The park and ride site is, I suppose, built on. But I would argue that paving is different to an actual structure - and those sorts of rules are important in green-belt land. But I am not a planning expert so that's all speculation.

As it is at todays date, there really isn't an asset worth stripping.

The one big one - the stadium - depends on the presence of the team to have value. The sheer expense of demolishing and clearing it to build something else would, I expect, make it prohibitively expensive to develop - and no one will buy it as is, without a team playing in it.

Re: Deadline
Drutz 18 December, 2017 15:55
TVM, no Sixways is not green belt. I cannot recall what it was changed to but basically I believe currently anything built there has to provide employment for the local community. Now if that has changed in the last 12 months I cannot say but that was how it was 12 months ago.



Forced to retire by the RFU

Re: Deadline
Freypal 18 December, 2017 17:20
I don't think the two week premiership break has helped with speculation as it's taken focus from on field to off the field... be nice to have a crucial game to discuss instead!

Re: Deadline
Abberley 18 December, 2017 18:23
Quote:
Drutz
You may need a surveyors opinion over this. I do keep hearing about these 50 acres is the Sixway's site actually 50 plus acres?

According to Google Maps, this area is approx 27.43 Acres

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XleTr9NqhRTWd-Q9XBe8nFmGhXs1zDDwlIKrz0MMpl_fkHeMvUF_hQTcMO8jp9mFD510Li-1OKO5hrgabQjhoxflQpRVx36oE2TCtk7e_ro0_qN1ZVwapGBooL9T7aQl0X-w9nLyIeo9kCmiaGtrOVKfsAhw_OFWy6dKu63JPJKVeQqdEdFoqEgi7J2KAuSNpYqy_Wkfzky0sEpn2nPuR_OT95CVGRm_nTaTmkrFrp-PMy2JwaLVNjcvFa9ME7VLnnD7m7IZqZ8n8fsZm7o4teIXpP4uX4sc3nqqYuru6dCm1aih5flrV6cNuVoLxBSPhn5gGZgLO4lBzq3i3RgQS3Sd7ph7whRcZIBI9bi-Alk_j7wmFfiI-jTCeAyBh8eevhfbuv4owv-e_R3gvn9VEVi8XyCDlcuOfX-iQG9DdBZOJL8Hgo2lLr5UV3HaR1ltkfn-hL1Gtj2HrG6723VYYWlU4zD6Iz1AXAkBlM8i7ahrrTuGD0oex6x3Dj1SLw77OzcXxwEnEPLmrV-CV5wARXFVxRZJfiZPq5lM8tmIRPMLG_gN2jAP2BPy3tMlz7K3fRyRXl_banFljJYnW4VXgWzkDdfZ-jqFu-xoYtRavI0=w360-h296-no

(111024.22 m² | 0.11 km² | 27.43 acres | 11.10 hectares |
1195054.78 feet² | 0.04 square miles | 0.03 square nautical miles)

[www.daftlogic.com]

I suspect the South Stand is owned by Duckworth Trust - but that would be cancelled out by the training pitch over the canal. Should any other areas be included in the 'Sixways Stadium' freehold?

Re: Deadline
worcestawarrior 18 December, 2017 18:55
anyway B0!!0c£$ to all the speculation we find out tomorrow.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 18 December, 2017 18:57
What makes you think we find out tomorrow?

JP

Re: Deadline
Simba 19 December, 2017 04:18
Quote:
Faithful_City
What makes you think we find out tomorrow?
JP

Tomorrow never comes.

Re: Deadline
Faithful_City 19 December, 2017 06:55
Ahh

Re: Deadline
worcestawarrior 19 December, 2017 10:21
Sorry JP (Sm157)(Sm158)

Re: Deadline
Drutz 19 December, 2017 10:38
Quote:
Abberley
Quote:
Drutz
You may need a surveyors opinion over this. I do keep hearing about these 50 acres is the Sixway's site actually 50 plus acres?

According to Google Maps, this area is approx 27.43 Acres

I suspect the South Stand is owned by Duckworth Trust - but that would be cancelled out by the training pitch over the canal. Should any other areas be included in the 'Sixways Stadium' freehold?

So we then assume it's probably 30 acres at best. I was struggling to figure out 50 acres as WRFC retained the majority of the land over the canal and own the land on Westons. I think lazy journalists may have looked at all the land including WRFC's lands.



Forced to retire by the RFU

Re: Deadline
Sheldon 20 December, 2017 16:08
[www.thenational.scot]

Another similar article although I thought it was well known that Worcester were not in debt ( because of the Allen family) but are loss making.

Re: Deadline
worcestawarrior 20 December, 2017 21:24
Agree no debt. However although still not palatable we were running at a loss of about 2,5 million a year.the 16 million over the last four years being attributed to writing debts off. Buying property for academy accommodation, two plastic pitches and a divorce payment to the amature club


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