What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Nice thread to stir up more abuse.

Oh gawd. Sometimes I do wonder if I can cope with all the incoming abuse! I suppose it must be like supporting Saracens during the worst of their problems. Not sure I’ve got the resilience any more. And Worcester really isn’t an easy journey for me. Are Championship matches televised?

And Chris Holland must have helped as his company Loxwood Holdings hav a charge against the Atlas business.

Meanwhile the new owners of Warriors are under threat of pain by the RFU.
How come Wasps new owners have the ear of the RFU and warriors don't?
Quote :
'Although proposals remain to merge with the first team of local tier-five side Stourbridge, nothing official has been announced, with Atlas warned by the RFU any move to "buy their way" back higher up the league, rather than start at the bottom in tier 10, would not be allowed"

So, Wasps allowed into the championship as an entirely new entity, but not Warriors.
It stinks of corruption. Damn cheek to want their stadium. Typical Cuckoo's in the nest franchise on the move again.

Cov - you are so keen to be nasty that you avoid any inconvenient facts.
The new owners of Worcester chose not to pay rugby-related debts so had to look for a new route. Hence trying to “buy” Stourbridge.

Quote:

Buzzer
Oh gawd. Sometimes I do wonder if I can cope with all the incoming abuse! I suppose it must be like supporting Saracens during the worst of their problems. Not sure I’ve got the resilience any more. And Worcester really isn’t an easy journey for me. Are Championship matches televised?

Let it wash over you Buzzer.

That's not true,
The administrator pays debts.
Just like Wasps.
Don't make it up.
Wasps is not a phoenix club in any sense of the word.
Warriors at sixways certainly would be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:06:15:23:52 by covkid53.

That’s wrong Covkid. The respective owners of Wasps and Wuss had to pay rugby creditors. Wasps owners have committed to doing that. Warriors owners didn’t. It really is very simple - which bit do you not understand?

You can say 'the owners have to pay rugby debts as per RFU rules to get a place in the championship' ad nauseum, but the basic understanding is just not there.
The.
New.
Owners.
Have.
To.
Pay.
Rugby.
Debts (not the administrators).
To.
Get.
A.
Place.
In.
The.
Championship.
There's another one. Won't make a difference.

This statement is just not sinking in because there is confusion between the legal payment to debtors and the RFU requirements that WW owners failed to meet by choice. Whilst the law is understandably recondite, the idea that WW owner's have chosen to not satisfy RFU criteria is a simple one; if Covkid fails to comprehend this then there is no point in continuation of discourse.
I suspect that what we have is Covkid willfully ignoring facts that don't fit their world view, leading to increasingly bizarre posts (v.s.),

I think wilfully ignoring is very generous WWW

REGULATION 14. OWNERSHIP OF CLUBS

14.1 No individual, body corporate, partnership, trust or any other entity (“Entity”) may directly or indirectly own or control more than one Club except with the prior written consent of the Union concerned, or where Clubs from different Unions are involved, the written consent of the Unions concerned and World Rugby.

14.2 An Entity will be deemed to be indirectly owning or controlling a Club if:

14.2.1 it owns or controls an Entity which directly or indirectly owns or controls a Club (irrespective of the number of Entities interposed between the two); or

14.2.2 pursuant to an agreement or understanding (whether formal or informal) an Entity co-operates with another to obtain or secure control of a Club;
or

14.2.3 a connected person of an Entity owns or controls a Club. The term “connected person” is to be construed widely, but will include the following (which is a non-exhaustive list);

(a) In the case of an individual, that individual’s wife, husband or other relative.

(b) Any Entities involved together in a trust, whether as trustee, settler or beneficiary.

(c) Any Entity involved in partnership together (in any business) with the entity which owns or controls a Club.

(d) A company is connected with another company if it holds any interest in the shares of that other company or the same Entity or any person connected to that Entity has control of both companies.

(e) A company is connected with another person if that person is an officer, employee or shareholder with 5 per cent, or more, of the Authorised Share Capital of the company or is connected to an officer, employee or such shareholder of the company.

(f) Any two or more persons acting together to secure or exercise control of a Club shall be treated as being connected with one another.

14.2.4 For the purpose of this Regulation 14, indirect ownership or control shall be widely construed.

14.3 For the purpose of this Regulation 14, “control” means the ability of an Entity, by whatever means, to secure that the affairs of a Club are or could be conducted or influenced in accordance with that Entity’s wishes.

14.4 For the purpose of this Regulation 14, “ownership” includes (without limitation) the holding of any number or class of shares in a company which owns the assets of a Club where those shares entitle the holder to participate in more than 50% of any dividend declared (in the relevant class if applicable) or to more than 50% of the company’s assets on a winding up.

14.5 This Regulation 14 shall be interpreted broadly to give effect to the underlying intention that no Entity or group of Entities, acting alone or in concert, shall control, or be in a position to control, either directly or indirectly, more than one Club.

14.6 Subject to obtaining the consent of the Union concerned or World Rugby, as provided for in Regulation 14.1, this Regulation 14 shall not prohibit the temporary ownership of more than one Club which arises out of the bona fide merger of two or more Clubs, provided that the ownership of more than one Club does not extend beyond three months.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

I believe Mister Holland's actions warrant an investigation by the RFU in that his loan facilitated the completion of the Atlas takeover at Sixways and satisfying Wasp's need for a stadium.

O'toole and his mate lost their American backers a while back and should have withdrawn to allow genuine bids to take place.
Given that neither has a pot to p*ss in they are likely to renege on their 21 day loan and hand over the stadium while they concentrate on the more lucrative business of selling off the surrounding land to developers.

The RFU never trusted them, and interfering in the affairs of Worcester Warriors Holland has merely facilitated Atlas' scam and satisfied the needs of his own club.

I would have probably grudgingly accepted a merger but this is the destruction of a club and its community.

If the RFU allow this to happen we are probably on a slippery slope.

I wish Wasps well, but not at Worcester's expense .

Quote:

Southstand(again)


Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
.

Why don’t you stick to facts then.

Facts

Would you like me to explain who Loxwood holdings are ?

[www.loxwoodholdings.co.uk]

Then there is also this in the RFU regs. Answers on a postcard how Holland is permitted to be a director of Wasps?

5.3.11 Any person who was a director of, or was concerned in, the management of any Club at the time at which any Insolvency Event or similar event occurred or at any time in the period of 12 months before any such Insolvency Event or similar event occurred shall not be entitled to become or to remain a director of or be concerned in the management of that or any other Club for a period of three years from the date of the Insolvency Event unless that person shall have shown good cause to the satisfaction of the RFU as to his/her fitness to be such a director or involved in the management of a Club during that three year period and the RFU has indicated its approval in writing and further no Club shall engage elect appoint or retain any such person as a director or to fulfil any management role within the Club without the written approval of the RFU.

Quote:

neiljk
Then there is also this in the RFU regs. Answers on a postcard how Holland is permitted to be a director of Wasps?
5.3.11 Any person who was a director of, or was concerned in, the management of any Club at the time at which any Insolvency Event or similar event occurred or at any time in the period of 12 months before any such Insolvency Event or similar event occurred shall not be entitled to become or to remain a director of or be concerned in the management of that or any other Club for a period of three years from the date of the Insolvency Event unless that person shall have shown good cause to the satisfaction of the RFU as to his/her fitness to be such a director or involved in the management of a Club during that three year period and the RFU has indicated its approval in writing and further no Club shall engage elect appoint or retain any such person as a director or to fulfil any management role within the Club without the written approval of the RFU.

Well, one possible answer is in the regulations you've quoted

BB

That’s the fit and proper test. Stated clearly in the regs. I really don’t get this narrative that Wasps have been treated differently to Worcester.

Quote:

Shugs
That’s the fit and proper test. Stated clearly in the regs. I really don’t get this narrative that Wasps have been treated differently to Worcester.

I have no idea how Worcester were set up but wasps had a structured businesses so wasps holdings essentially owed most of the liability and the charge on the lease.

therefore the majority debt was accredited to wasps holdings.

the reality of course is the players were paid by income generated across the whole group. The other reality is they were knowingly trading as an insolvent company - the wasps RFC element of the business was easier to purchase as most of the debt was held by wasps holdings Ltd

there is also the curious fact that the day of the bond default Derek Richardson sold his interest in Henley (via his Maltese based company Moonstone capital) to Hollands company - despite Vaughan telling everyone wasos owned the training centre. This was clearly not a co-incidence and a way of avoiding potential claims against it.

So now Holland owns wasps RFC - which hasn’t got the majority of debt rugby related or otherwise - and a plot of real estate he doesn’t need anymore

They are clearly planning to grab Sixways on the cheap and screw Worcester over like they screw any business they deal with

But don’t worry, he’s definitely a fit and proper person. Very odd that the eventual purchaser of Wasps somehow came into possession of the epic literally as Wasps went bang.

Shall we also chat about Phoenix clubs needing to play at their prior venue?

Rules are being flexed are they not?

Quote:

neiljk
But don’t worry, he’s definitely a fit and proper person. Very odd that the eventual purchaser of Wasps somehow came into possession of the epic literally as Wasps went bang.
Shall we also chat about Phoenix clubs needing to play at their prior venue?

Rules are being flexed are they not?

Chris Holland put the money up to build it, so what's the problem?

Quote:

Heathen

Quote:

neiljk
But don’t worry, he’s definitely a fit and proper person. Very odd that the eventual purchaser of Wasps somehow came into possession of the epic literally as Wasps went bang.
Shall we also chat about Phoenix clubs needing to play at their prior venue?

Rules are being flexed are they not?

Chris Holland put the money up to build it, so what's the problem?

Perhaps the other investors in Wasps who didn’t get the chance to cherry pick their bit might have an opinion on that.

If they are, it’s probably sensible.
I’m not sure who Worcester fans messaging here hate most. Atlas or Wasps. Or perhaps the receivers who chose Atlas.

That is the real issue- the receivers chose them without recourse to RFU requirements. That is their job, but the receivers' job is diametrically opposed to what is best for Worcester Warriors and the region.
There is plenty more to play out on this though.

God help these dark shadowy figures effecting people lives and investments, as well the surrounding areas of their properties. Cvc /rfu money given to clubs is fine, but when the owner of one club gives money gifts etc to another for whatever period of time. When does conflict of interest ever not apply and numerous legal phrases which may or should apply.....

But in this case there is no WW- the owners are owners of a ground and land only at this point- not a club. They have the rights to the club and its name, but unless they agree to pay rugby creditors there is no championship club and their other plans for merger have been curtailed. Obviously should they agree to pay the creditors and pass the f and p test then it would be the owner of one club to another via his business.

Worcester RFC are no more, Sixways is now in other hands, but are the car parks and other assets ? seems to be a grey area atm.
Wasps have no ground (again) and have applied to use an empty stadium (again). However, I accept they had a discussion with the CBS about remaining there, and no agreement was reached. This process probably saved their status as a "phoenix club" because Wasps demonstrated they tried to stay in Cov (satisfied the rule ?).
The concern I have is will they borrow money to sign, pay and recruit the entire staff and rugby infrastructure to compete in the championship. Do they qualify for parachute payments and or the RFU money each championship club receive, pittance as it now is. The top clubs player and other salaries are £1.5 to £2.5 million over the season. Who pays this? More creditors or gifts from wealthy owners? The money through the Sixways turnstiles might not amount to much given the out of the way location of the stadium.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:07:19:49:31 by covkid53.

Who pays it for anyone else Covkid? Do you know the fiscal arrangements for all clubs? Is it inconceivable that Wasps might follow these examples? Are no other clubs in debt?

Quote:

neiljk
Shall we also chat about Phoenix clubs needing to play at their prior venue?

Rules are being flexed are they not?

This conversation has been done to death. It was proven that no such rule exists.


Edit: This is from RFU Regulation 5:

The primary considerations for the RFU if the Club wishes to transfer its membership and league position to a Phoenix Entity are:
• Will the Phoenix Entity be able to play at its current ground next season and beyond?

It is a consideration, not a rule. It poses a question, it doesn't set in stone a must comply rule.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:07:22:34:41 by Garuda.

Quote:

covkid53
Worcester RFC are no more, Sixways is now in other hands.

Worcester RFC is alive and well. My boys only played against them two weeks ago. And Sixways is in the hands of WW owners.

Quote:

Garuda

Quote:

covkid53
Worcester RFC are no more, Sixways is now in other hands.

Worcester RFC is alive and well. My boys only played against them two weeks ago. And Sixways is in the hands of WW owners.

Point taken, my apologies.
Wasps amateur RFC alive and well in London too.

Quote:

Shugs
Who pays it for anyone else Covkid? Do you know the fiscal arrangements for all clubs? Is it inconceivable that Wasps might follow these examples? Are no other clubs in debt?

I do actually.
All other clubs in the championship have stadia, fans, players, sponsors, income streams from their assets, season ticket holders, lotteries, concerts, other teams sharing their ground, weddings, exhibitions blah blah.
At this time, Wasps have nothing, not even permission to play at Sixways.
My point is they have massive startup costs to find .... where are players, coaches, medical and others salaries coming from on day one of the phoenix club taking flight ?

Don't quote existing clubs finances because your analogy is nonsense.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:08:13:06:07 by covkid53.

I’ll say it again Covkid. We don’t know. But the RFU are satisfied.

Quote:

covkid53
My point is they have massive startup costs to find .... where are players, coaches, medical and others salaries coming from on day one of the phoenix club taking flight ?

As part of meeting the RFU's terms to take their place in the Championship next season, Wasps were required to submit a business plan and provide proof of funds to show they have enough money to operate the club for the next three years.

At least I think it was three years...someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

Garuda

Quote:

covkid53
My point is they have massive startup costs to find .... where are players, coaches, medical and others salaries coming from on day one of the phoenix club taking flight ?

As part of meeting the RFU's terms to take their place in the Championship next season, Wasps were required to submit a business plan and provide proof of funds to show they have enough money to operate the club for the next three years.

At least I think it was three years...someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Three Years.

Ok, a three year plan.
What is it ?
Purely in the name of transparency to the rest of the championship, if course.
Or is it hidden from view at the RFU ?

Commercial in confidence.

But, Covkid, I'm sure that if you ask nicely the RFU will send it to your school and you could use it as a 5th Form project.....

Quote:

Garuda
This is from RFU Regulation 5:
The primary considerations for the RFU if the Club wishes to transfer its membership and league position to a Phoenix Entity are:
• Will the Phoenix Entity be able to play at its current ground next season and beyond?

It is a consideration, not a rule. It poses a question, it doesn't set in stone a must comply rule.

You did spot that this is part of a Regulation? Another word for which is 'rule'. And it goes on to say that the primary (that's first or most important ) thing to take into consideration (that's think about) when applying that rule is where a Phoenix Entity plays.

So, any decision that doesn't appear to take that primary consideration into account is open to question.

Hi Gr@y,

Yes, its in the RFU regulations - but the section I quoted from specifically states this item to be a consideration.

You may interpret it differently than I, but if it was a set-in-stone rule, surely it wouldn't be worded as a consideration and would be followed by a statement of fact, not a posing question?

Simply put, it doesn't state you must, or shall or any other wording to suggest this item is obligatory and non-negotiable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:09:13:44:18 by Garuda.

Quote:

Gr@y_Lensman

Quote:

Garuda
This is from RFU Regulation 5:
The primary considerations for the RFU if the Club wishes to transfer its membership and league position to a Phoenix Entity are:
• Will the Phoenix Entity be able to play at its current ground next season and beyond?

It is a consideration, not a rule. It poses a question, it doesn't set in stone a must comply rule.

You did spot that this is part of a Regulation? Another word for which is 'rule'. And it goes on to say that the primary (that's first or most important ) thing to take into consideration (that's think about) when applying that rule is where a Phoenix Entity plays.

So, any decision that doesn't appear to take that primary consideration into account is open to question.

Also if you track back you will find that the new owners approached the Ashley mob about playing position very quickly and used the rejection to ask the RFU where do they suggest OR as was given strict parameters distance wise from EPIC. They did this before expending time and finance on putting their financial proposal to the RFU (unlike the new WW owners).

I read on this, or another, thread the claim that Atlas cannot sell/develop the Sixways site for 5 years and question if this is correct?

The Administrator's duty is to maximise the assets value, so it would be a really strange condition for them to insist on as it would reduce Sixways value. If it wasn't the administrator, then who could make it a condition of sale?

Could that be a covenant left over from he original purchase from Cecil.

I still don't get how the RFU can accept net losses of Wasps in the order if £50m and allow the club to continue, but ban WW for having less than half that debt. On the basis that Wasps agreed to pay rugby creditors is farcical.

Quote:

covkid53
I still don't get how the RFU can accept net losses of Wasps in the order if £50m and allow the club to continue, but ban WW for having less than half that debt. On the basis that Wasps agreed to pay rugby creditors is farcical.

The RFU are a farce - I can agree on that point. Stumble from crisis to crisis with no plans & invent "rugby creditors" to suit some circumstances, but not others.

Quote:

covkid53
I still don't get how the RFU can accept net losses of Wasps in the order if £50m and allow the club to continue, but ban WW for having less than half that debt. On the basis that Wasps agreed to pay rugby creditors is farcical.

Because WW are not banned.

Quote:

covkid53
I still don't get how the RFU can accept net losses of Wasps in the order if £50m and allow the club to continue, but ban WW for having less than half that debt. On the basis that Wasps agreed to pay rugby creditors is farcical.

Bea cause the requirement to pay rugby creditors is in the rules.

And don’t forget that Atlas decided not to pay rugby creditors and chose for themselves to start down the leagues. Stourbridge members still to decide if they want to “merge”.

Rugby creditors is a red herring.
All Wasps and Worcester's debts are rugby related, how could they not be.
So all creditors who get pennies in the pound from the administration process, it's a debt paid.

Quote:

covkid53
Rugby creditors is a red herring.
All Wasps and Worcester's debts are rugby related, how could they not be.
So all creditors who get pennies in the pound from the administration process, it's a debt paid.

Oh shut up.

Quote:

covkid53
Rugby creditors is a red herring.
All Wasps and Worcester's debts are rugby related, how could they not be.
So all creditors who get pennies in the pound from the administration process, it's a debt paid.

Statements like that don't help your credibility.

BB

Quote:

covkid53
Rugby creditors is a red herring.
All Wasps and Worcester's debts are rugby related, how could they not be?

Rugby creditors are clearly defined as being those whose sole income is from rugby, it is to whom it is owed and the nature of their business that matters, not the fact that is owed by a rugby club.

Thus rugby debts are to rugby people and businesses. The fact that all debts were from a rugby organisation has no relevance.

Thus, WW or Wasps owe a brewery, say, not rugby creditor. They owe a player or manufacturer of rugby posts, then they are considered rugby creditors.

Comprehension appears to not be your strong point on these matters.

Shame on those telling me to shut up, when it was Wasps who borrowed money hand over fist to move to the Ricoh, how could this not all be rugby related ? How is an 8 year, £90m running loss incurred by the rugby club, not rugby related ? The entire premise is a sham. Those rugby businesses owed money are no different to bond holders and others owed money. This is a protectionist ploy to salve the conscious's at the RFU. The FA have a similar escape clause for clubs. Let's not kid ourselves, I accept Wasps have benefited from said rule, but that doesn't make it right. As a Coventry ratepayer we have lost £250,000 unpaid by Wasps. That's a nice thank you and goodbye gift is it not ?

Like Warriors, Wasps should be starting again in the 10th tier of rugby. Warriors have been warned a merger with Stourbridge will not give them access to the 5th tier.

You are an entirely new rugby club with a "name only" as it currently stands.

Let's see what happens eh ?
Bye for now.

Because the rules don't say rugby related. End of.

Somebody on this thread needs a few aromatherapy candles and a lie down in a dark room.
Chill out, lad.

Quote:

covkid53
As a Coventry ratepayer we have lost £250,000 unpaid by Wasps. That's a nice thank you and goodbye gift is it not ?

And as a Coventry ratepayer as well (although it's been a longtime since they were called rates) how much would the council have lost if Wasps hadn't turned up?
Most of Wasps debt was all about buying the Ricoh and paying the council.

The council could have lost many millions as CCFC did everything they could to distress the council owned business, so whilst it is bad the council have lost £250k, it could have been a lot worse.

Quote:

anderm

Quote:

covkid53
As a Coventry ratepayer we have lost £250,000 unpaid by Wasps. That's a nice thank you and goodbye gift is it not ?

And as a Coventry ratepayer as well (although it's been a longtime since they were called rates) how much would the council have lost if Wasps hadn't turned up?
Most of Wasps debt was all about buying the Ricoh and paying the council.

The council could have lost many millions as CCFC did everything they could to distress the council owned business, so whilst it is bad the council have lost £250k, it could have been a lot worse.

Most of Wasps debt wasn’t about buying the Ricoh.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

Better to allow someone an opinion and read in good grace, rather than being in denial and stupid.

Not Mark Twain 😂

Quote:

Gaz
“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”
― Mark Twain

How very true in relation to Anderm.

Quote:

covkid53
Better to allow someone an opinion and read in good grace, rather than being in denial and stupid.
Not Mark Twain 😂

Try not repeating yourself with the same stupid comments, you have been told several times the reasons but as it doesn't fit your agenda you maybe, 'choose to ignore it' or 'too stupid to work it out'.

What on earth as Neils got to do with Wasps debts, why make that comment AGAIN

If you wish to have a grown up discussion, maybe you should follow Mark Twain or even follow your own quote



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:17:16:37:03 by Westy68.

No that was Samuel Langhorne Clemens wasn't it ?

I'm pretty sure it was Abraham Lincoln

Foghorn Leghorn or Mark Twine

Fergal54 and covkid53 are like diapers and they have to be changed often and for the same reason.

Apologies to Mark Twain😉

“This machine kills fascists”
Woody Guthrie's guitar.

Look on the bright side - at least we haven’t had input from numbers 1 to 52 yet.

Quote:

Shugs
Look on the bright side - at least we haven’t had input from numbers 1 to 52 yet.