Latest news:

Still little news on Leeds
Discussion started by Diesel74 (IP Logged), 10 September, 2019 08:03
Diesel74
Diesel74
10 September, 2019 08:03
I feel truly sorry for their fans.

Whoever the clowns are in charge, they've not done well by fans, staff or players recently.

Thank the lords of rugby for Jon Sharp!

Mark



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2019 09:38 by AdminBTCov.

abdabs99rugby
abdabs
10 September, 2019 08:57
Rugby paper claims Bath maybe providing players for them?

HoboAl
HoboAl
10 September, 2019 10:41
No doubt it will all come out in the wash.

HoboAl
HoboAl
10 September, 2019 11:04

BackTenRef?
BackTenRef?
10 September, 2019 12:14
Still begs the question who will be playing for them? Can’t have had much in the way of a preseason with a handful of players and even if they get in a load of DRs/loanees it doesn’t bode well for them honouring their fixture list once injuries kick in. If they start raiding other clubs from lower leagues it raises both a player safety question and a competitiveness question ( question nothing more)

covkid53
covkid53
10 September, 2019 12:33
Having read the CEO's report, he seems to have stabilised the club finances at the cost CVA's to some players, staff and creditors. No comment on the cash amount lost by these individuals.

However, a playing budget of £600k down from £2.5 million is huge. 40 individuals on £15,000 per this season will see that budget gone. I suppose part time that would suffice, but just watch how many players they will actually have on their roster. I can see 15 plus loanees who's salaries will be paid by their home club. Its hard to see how they can stay in this league as part timers with a smaller playing budget than most division one clubs.

However, as a championship club they could be attractive to Premiership teams looking to move players out for short term game time in a competitive league.

Not fair on those doing things the right way, personally I hope they survive as a club but finish bottom.

MESSAGES->author
OldNick
10 September, 2019 13:31
As pointed out previously the figures for all the creditors have been published as part of the CVA, and it is hardly surprising that the CEO has claimed to have stabilised YCs finances.

Looking at the figures £4.75 million of the debt - the biggest creditor by a factor of more than 10 - was owed to Yorkshire Tykes , the company that owns them anyway. This is the only creditor which could have blocked the CVA, and the very fact of proposing one will have been agreed in advance as part of “stabilisation”.

The whole debacle has been a case of writing off this massive debt from both the books of Yorkshire Carnegie and Yorkshire Tykes, as a way of balancing their books, following the withdrawal of a major source of funding.

This has been done quite cynically and deliberately, with the attitude that the other 40 creditors can take it (the 15% of what they were owed) or leave it and get nothing. This applied as much to Leeds Cricket Football and Athletic Company ( the ground?) at £402,842.82, Sam Key at £33.20, or anyone in between.

MESSAGES->author
leemingtyke
10 September, 2019 15:21
Quote:
OldNick
The whole debacle has been a case of writing off this massive debt from both the books of Yorkshire Carnegie and Yorkshire Tykes, as a way of balancing their books, following the withdrawal of a major source of funding.
This has been done quite cynically and deliberately, with the attitude that the other 40 creditors can take it (the 15% of what they were owed) or leave it and get nothing. This applied as much to Leeds Cricket Football and Athletic Company ( the ground?) at £402,842.82, Sam Key at £33.20, or anyone in between.

OK.

So, what should they have done instead?

Billy ba
Billy ba
10 September, 2019 15:25
Dont let facts get in the way.

Moosemagic
Moosemagic
10 September, 2019 15:26
Quote:
leemingtyke
Quote:
OldNick
The whole debacle has been a case of writing off this massive debt from both the books of Yorkshire Carnegie and Yorkshire Tykes, as a way of balancing their books, following the withdrawal of a major source of funding.
This has been done quite cynically and deliberately, with the attitude that the other 40 creditors can take it (the 15% of what they were owed) or leave it and get nothing. This applied as much to Leeds Cricket Football and Athletic Company ( the ground?) at £402,842.82, Sam Key at £33.20, or anyone in between.

OK.

So, what should they have done instead?

Maybe not got them selves into that situation in the first place?



Phil Reynolds

MESSAGES->author
leemingtyke
10 September, 2019 15:35
Quote:
Moosemagic
Quote:
leemingtyke
Quote:
OldNick
The whole debacle has been a case of writing off this massive debt from both the books of Yorkshire Carnegie and Yorkshire Tykes, as a way of balancing their books, following the withdrawal of a major source of funding.
This has been done quite cynically and deliberately, with the attitude that the other 40 creditors can take it (the 15% of what they were owed) or leave it and get nothing. This applied as much to Leeds Cricket Football and Athletic Company ( the ground?) at £402,842.82, Sam Key at £33.20, or anyone in between.

OK.

So, what should they have done instead?

Maybe not got them selves into that situation in the first place?

Yes, that would've been ideal.

But given that the situation had arisen and they had to deal with it, the question remains - What should they have done instead?

MESSAGES->author
OldNick
10 September, 2019 15:45
Quote:
leemingtyke
Quote:
OldNick
The whole debacle has been a case of writing off this massive debt from both the books of Yorkshire Carnegie and Yorkshire Tykes, as a way of balancing their books, following the withdrawal of a major source of funding.
This has been done quite cynically and deliberately, with the attitude that the other 40 creditors can take it (the 15% of what they were owed) or leave it and get nothing. This applied as much to Leeds Cricket is and Athletic Company ( the ground?) at £402,842.82, Sam Key at £33.20, or anyone in between.

OK.

So, what should they have done instead?

Gone into administration, taken the hit, and played next season with a penalty in NL1.

Instead of which, with the connivance of the RFU, they have discovered we’d a financial measure which was not in existence at the time the regulations were written, to condemn another club which has done nothing wrong to relegation.

The effect that f the CVA has been effectively the same as administration for 39 percent f the 40 creditors. The effect on the club should have been exactly the same.

Further there should have been an investigation by the RFU, or instigated by them with the appropriate public financial authorities to determine if the directors of YC had any incoming at the time they hired their additional players last season that they can ups not payment. If this had been carried out and determined that they did it knowingly, criminal proceedings against the directors and expulsion from the RFU would have been appropriate.

Diesel74
Diesel74
10 September, 2019 17:24
And there's the difficulty, Leemingtyke. A catch 22 situation.

People like me, who have tried to be honest throughout their lives, will say the club could have/should have avoided the poor way it treated the players that were contracted.

And if that meant relegation, then, National One might have been a more realistic vision for the club in its current position.

Because, if Yorkshire are going to use DR players to survive in the Championship, then that makes a mockery of the whole idea of sustainable rugby and clubs. We have seen how Hartpury has fared thanks to the money it can get through education and, thus sporting education, streams as well as DR players from several Premiership clubs.

I feel for you and the fans.

When Coventry screwed up, we ended up in exile in National One. It's not pretty, given our history, but, despite my nostalgic bent, history means nothing. The present is all, but the future is key.

If Carnegie bosses are desperate to cling on to the little cash Championship rugby offers compared to the third tier, then that says something about Mr Hetherington et al.

I've been speaking to quite a few people off the record and I wonder how Carnegie's reputation in the wider Yorkshire rugby scene is faring?

The players, staff and fans deserve better.

Mark

MESSAGES->author
leemingtyke
10 September, 2019 19:46
Exactly, a catch 22 situation, no winners, all you can do is make the best of a very bad situation.

Old Nick would like to have seen the creditors get nothing and the club, in all likelihood, cease to exist. If he were in charge, that's what he says he would've done. Seems to me that that is the worst of a bad situation and a strange position to take for someone who seems to base the rest of his opinion on morality. Richmond were relegated last season because they finished bottom of the league, Carnegie finished 6th and the players were paid in full up until the end of the season. If your concern is really for Richmond then I think you need to switch your aim towards Hartpury, but of course it isn't is it.

Carnegie have been shockingly badly run for years, you'll get no argument from me on that. We've screwed up, and as a result we're now a part time outfit staring relegation squarely in the face. If that's what happens then it will have been decided on the rugby field and it is what we will deserve. If Richmond are good enough for the Championship then they will come back up to replace us, the equilibrium will have been restored and Old Nick will have his wish except that the creditors will have had 15% rather than nothing.

HoboAl
HoboAl
11 September, 2019 09:21
[quote leemingtyke]Exactly, a catch 22 situation, no winners, all you can do is make the best of a very bad situation.

Old Nick would like to have seen the creditors get nothing and the club, in all likelihood, cease to exist. If he were in charge, that's what he says he would've done. Seems to me that that is the worst of a bad situation and a strange position to take for someone who seems to base the rest of his opinion on morality. Richmond were relegated last season because they finished bottom of the league, Carnegie finished 6th and the players were paid in full up until the end of the season. If your concern is really for Richmond then I think you need to switch your aim towards Hartpury, but of course it isn't is it.

Carnegie have been shockingly badly run for years, you'll get no argument from me on that. We've screwed up, and as a result we're now a part time outfit staring relegation squarely in the face. If that's what happens then it will have been decided on the rugby field and it is what we will deserve. If Richmond are good enough for the Championship then they will come back up to replace us, the equilibrium will have been restored and Old Nick will have his wish except that the creditors will have had 15% rather than nothing.[/quorte]

Yes you finished sixth because you spent money on players to get off the bottom. At the time I said fair play and predicted you would climb the table.

But then it very quickly transpired you had spent money you didn't have and had entered contracts with players you couldn't honour....that is what annoys me, making a mockery of where you finished.

Also the RFU should treat a CVA the same way as a club going into Administration. The only way to promote good and responsible financial management is to punish the irresponsible and wreckless. It is not the fans fault, they are often not aware of the scale of the situation. I just hope Carnegie don't survive by following the Hartpury model, one is bad enough.

MESSAGES->author
Wildwillie
11 September, 2019 16:06
Quote:
HoboAl
......Also the RFU should treat a CVA the same way as a club going into Administration. The only way to promote good and responsible financial management is to punish the irresponsible and wreckless.. ......

I completely agree with this. However as things stand the rfu does not, thus allowing the Carnegie management to use the CVA to clear the debts.

HoboAl
HoboAl
11 September, 2019 17:54
[quote Wildwillie ][quote HoboAl]......Also the RFU should treat a CVA the same way as a club going into Administration. The only way to promote good and responsible financial management is to punish the irresponsible and wreckless.. ......[/quote]

I completely agree with this. However as things stand the rfu does not, thus allowing the Carnegie management to use the CVA to clear the debts.[/equote]

I know. But rules can be changed, as they were in football after Leicester did something similar and the loophole got closed.

MESSAGES->author
OldNick
11 September, 2019 18:37
Read Nick Mayhew’s Tweet today, about how they were ‘mislead’ over the CVA. He was the 4th highest creditor, at £238,333.
He says they were told that the CVA legally needed approval from the creditors of 75% of the debt, and that as this was one company (YorkshireTykes) who had already approved it their vote was meaningless. So he, and other creditors did not vote against.
He then says that they were not told that the RFU had imposed a standard of requiring that 100% of those voting had to approve for YC to escape punishment, until it was too late to vote against, and break that 100% line.

Another reason why YC should have been treated as having gone into administration and been penalised, and why the RFU should hang it’s head in shame at helping them perpetrate this con.

HoboAl
HoboAl
11 September, 2019 19:51
Quote:
OldNick
Read Nick Mayhew’s Tweet today, about how they were ‘mislead’ over the CVA. He was the 4th highest creditor, at £238,333.
He says they were told that the CVA legally needed approval from the creditors of 75% of the debt, and that as this was one company (YorkshireTykes) who had already approved it their vote was meaningless. So he, and other creditors did not vote against.
He then says that they were not told that the RFU had imposed a standard of requiring that 100% of those voting had to approve for YC to escape punishment, until it was too late to vote against, and break that 100% line.

Another reason why YC should have been treated as having gone into administration and been penalised, and why the RFU should hang it’s head in shame at helping them perpetrate this con.

Well if RFU rules were not met, they were not met. The RFU can revisit that surely. If Carnegie misled the other creditors it is fraud. If the other creditors were slack in protecting their own interests, that is their fault.

If the RFU failed to inform all parties of their rules and proceedings around the Carnegie meltdown, I can see some pending law suites.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2019 19:59 by HoboAl.

MESSAGES->author
leemingtyke
11 September, 2019 21:09
Quote:
OldNick
Read Nick Mayhew’s Tweet today, about how they were ‘mislead’ over the CVA. He was the 4th highest creditor, at £238,333.
He says they were told that the CVA legally needed approval from the creditors of 75% of the debt, and that as this was one company (YorkshireTykes) who had already approved it their vote was meaningless. So he, and other creditors did not vote against.

So they were told the truth then.

Quote:
OldNick
He then says that they were not told that the RFU had imposed a standard of requiring that 100% of those voting had to approve for YC to escape punishment, until it was too late to vote against, and break that 100% line.

Why would Carnegie apply for a CVA and then tell the creditors how to scupper it. This information wasnt hidden, it was readily available in the RFU rules. If the players didn't do their research I'm afraid that, as sorry as I feel for them, that was their fault.

Quote:
OldNick
Another reason why YC should have been treated as having gone into administration and been penalised, and why the RFU should hang it’s head in shame at helping them perpetrate this con.

Here's the reality, if you're interested:

Morally, I believe that the club and YTL have gone to some very dark places to get to the position we are now in.

But,

No RFU rules have been broken. NONE. Therefore no sanctions.

Once again OldNick, if your concern is for the players, it seems strange that you would see them end up with nothing via administration.

MESSAGES->author
OldNick
11 September, 2019 22:18
Yeah, I get it Leemingtyke.

You will defend to the death your club going to morally ‘very dark places’ to survive. And you glory in that.

Just look at the values of Rugby Union. You do not deserve any involvement in sport.

MESSAGES->author
leemingtyke
11 September, 2019 22:35
I don't 'glory' in it, in fact I'm massively uncomfortable with it, I'm just a realist.

As for yourself, you hide behind a pretence of moral concern for Richmond or for former players when the reality is you just don't like Carnegie and you want to see us punished, despite no rules having been broken.

Sam Skennel
Egg Timer
12 September, 2019 07:13
I think that most people have some sympathy for the players and employees of the club, and actually feel no animosity toward the club at all. Lord knows, we've been in a similar position within recent history.

Where I think they *do* have a problem is the way in which Coventry were dealt with (correctly at the time, in fairness) and the way in which Yorkshire appear to have received favourable treatment, however you perceive that to have happened.

It's also rooted in the way we left the Championship (National 1 at the time) some years ago, when Russell Earnshaw brought in a raft of England 7's players to Birmingham Solihull at Christmas to ensure they remained in that league to Coventry's cost.

AS a result of that, perhaps, in can be understood that some of us see Richmond as having been at the same end of that particular sh!tty stick this time as we were then.

Rules may not have been broken, and goodwill and the spirit of the game have been bruised, as they have with the way that Hartpury used DR players to ensure their own place in the Championship when it may have been as in doubt as that of Yorkshire.

Diesel74
Diesel74
12 September, 2019 08:09
I apologise for starting this topic. It wasn't meant as a Carnegie-bashing post, just voicing a sadness for the fans that so little had been made public about the coming campaign.

LeemingTyke, I can assure you that OldNick is a rugby fan, true to rugby's core values, and I'd lay a pound to a penny that he doesn't dislike Carnegie, just the way the club has been run.

Good luck in the season. I'm glad you still have a club to support, but remember, reputations are hard to shake off and any anger towards Carnegie will not be directed at the loyal fans. It's not their fault.

If you ever read any of the rubbish I spout in blogs here, or on my personal blog page, I'm against the old 'love of money is the root of all evil' that I feel is damaging professional sport. Players IMHO need to be paid and paid well, but not at some of the fees, and not if a club can't sustain those wages.

I understand that Carnegie struggled thanks to a main investor dropping out suddenly, but it's then that a club should cut their cloth accordingly - as I've had to do in real life. Employed, a reasonable career history, with a bit of money, to being a stay at home dad with nothing. And I wouldn't have it any other way, although my two year old is a lot of a handful smiling smiley

But good wishes to the fans.

If I can make it to BPA for the Carnegie game, it would be nice to shake hands and say hello.

Mark

MESSAGES->author
AdminBTCov
12 September, 2019 09:33
Amen to that.
I see nothing more useful coming from this thread, so I'm closing it now before tempers get frayed winking smiley



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2019 09:39 by AdminBTCov.


This Thread has been closed
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