Worcester and Wasps GONE?

[Iain(bobbity)]

14-14 at half time at Kingsholm.

Worcester have a recently retired player and a coach on the bench.

[Kawazaki]

Surely the league can't afford to lose 2 teams, some way must be found to keep them going. I thought that there was someone interested in Worcester?

There's been a rumour doing the rounds for a while, before Covid, that the club owners want some clubs to fail. Ideally, the Premiership will have just 10 clubs but if it's 10 clubs still operating as they have done with 12/13 then it's only a matter of time before more fail. The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

[Iain(bobbity)]

[Paddington Bear]

Is anyone able to give a top line overview on why wasps went into so much debt to move to Coventry?

Remember reading at the time on the Wasps forum a bloke who seemed to have an inside scoop from Wasps and some sort of business background who judged it was all an attempt to asset strip the club whilst using them as a vehicle to take over the casino at the Ricoh

[ia801310]

[inactionman]

Guess I'll have to find a new way to be disappointed most weekends.

Support Bath

Woah there, I said disappointed not plunged into depression.

You'll be thrilled to hear that - assuming Wasps remain a going concern for the next 30 hours or so - it's Bath vs Wasps on the TV tomorrow night.

Enjoy the 5 points.

[I like neeps]

Is anyone able to give a top line overview on why wasps went into so much debt to move to Coventry?

Remember reading at the time on the Wasps forum a bloke who seemed to have an inside scoop from Wasps and some sort of business background who judged it was all an attempt to asset strip the club whilst using them as a vehicle to take over the casino at the Ricoh

That would be bizarre!

It has to be a huge concern for sport that building stadiums is not viable unless you have a massive hospitality add-on, a spurs esk entertainment venue or a temporary effort like Edinburgh and Glasgow.

[shaggy]

Surely the league can't afford to lose 2 teams, some way must be found to keep them going. I thought that there was someone interested in Worcester?

There's been a rumour doing the rounds for a while, before Covid, that the club owners want some clubs to fail. Ideally, the Premiership will have just 10 clubs but if it's 10 clubs still operating as they have done with 12/13 then it's only a matter of time before more fail. The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

… says the supporter of the club that weaponised the financial model for English club rugby …

[PornDog]

Surely the league can't afford to lose 2 teams, some way must be found to keep them going. I thought that there was someone interested in Worcester?

There's been a rumour doing the rounds for a while, before Covid, that the club owners want some clubs to fail. Ideally, the Premiership will have just 10 clubs but if it's 10 clubs still operating as they have done with 12/13 then it's only a matter of time before more fail. The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

… says the supporter of the club that weaponised the financial model for English club rugby …

I didn't want to be the one to say it!

[Kawazaki]

Surely the league can't afford to lose 2 teams, some way must be found to keep them going. I thought that there was someone interested in Worcester?

There's been a rumour doing the rounds for a while, before Covid, that the club owners want some clubs to fail. Ideally, the Premiership will have just 10 clubs but if it's 10 clubs still operating as they have done with 12/13 then it's only a matter of time before more fail. The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

… says the supporter of the club that weaponised the financial model for English club rugby …

Not really. Virtually all the best players at Saracens were developed by Saracens from their teenage years. And doesn't a little bit of you think it's actually a good idea to encourage players to start their own businesses, be entrepreneurial and have interests outside of rugby?

We need more clubs that look after their players properly, not less. You'd have to be a real hater not to acknowledge that Saracens are probably the best club in the league at developing players.

[sockwithaticket]

Support Bath

Woah there, I said disappointed not plunged into depression.

You'll be thrilled to hear that - assuming Wasps remain a going concern for the next 30 hours or so - it's Bath vs Wasps on the TV tomorrow night.

Enjoy the 5 points.

I think the last time I was thrilled about anything to do with Wasps was the Koch signing...

Our handling has been pretty poor since the back end of last season and the two rounds of the current one indicate little on that front has changed. I'd like to think last week marks a nadir it's impossible to surpass with at least 19 handling errors (that's the official count, it felt about double that while watching), but if anyone can find a way to provide you with a first win of the season it's us.

[weegie01]

Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

[Raggs]

Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

Only if reducing subs doesn't increase injuries. If it increases injuries, then it potentially increases squad sizes, especially if they're medium to long term injuries.

[JM2K6]

Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

You still need to be able to do opposed training and keep enough players to cover multiple competitions and injuries.

Plus, putting more players out of work shouldn't be the answer here.

[Paddington Bear]

BCM's point around salaries compared to cricket and league is the better one. There's been runaway growth in them, the game doesn't seem to have understood it's TV deal is a pawn in the football rights game.

[SaintK]

A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

[JM2K6]

A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful news.

[eldanielfire]

There's been a rumour doing the rounds for a while, before Covid, that the club owners want some clubs to fail. Ideally, the Premiership will have just 10 clubs but if it's 10 clubs still operating as they have done with 12/13 then it's only a matter of time before more fail. The whole model is fundamentally flawed.

… says the supporter of the club that weaponised the financial model for English club rugby …

Not really. Virtually all the best players at Saracens were developed by Saracens from their teenage years. And doesn't a little bit of you think it's actually a good idea to encourage players to start their own businesses, be entrepreneurial and have interests outside of rugby?

We need more clubs that look after their players properly, not less. You'd have to be a real hater not to acknowledge that Saracens are probably the best club in the league at developing players.

Not quite, Sarries imported loads of experienced players to generate a platform for success and coach/teach/role model the development of younger players. It wasn't exactly all internal development. Likewise the money factor isn't always about bringing in players, but about keeping them to maintain or build upon successs. But the issue people have with Sarries isn't that they encourage players to have outside interests.

[eldanielfire]

Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

You still need to be able to do opposed training and keep enough players to cover multiple competitions and injuries.

Plus, putting more players out of work shouldn't be the answer here.

Indeed. Squads will always need up to 3 sets of props and hookers and 3 Srum halfs at the least.

[PornDog]

BCM's point around salaries compared to cricket and league is the better one. There's been runaway growth in them, the game doesn't seem to have understood it's TV deal is a pawn in the football rights game.

Apparently the Super League salary cap is £2.1M - now I'm sure they have much smaller squads, but this guy reckons the average SL wage is 40k per annum - https://sqaf.club/how-much-do-rugby-pla ... gue-union/

Don't know how reliable those figures are, but the point stands that RU players are massively over paid. I know that's not a popular opinion considering the damage they do to their bodies, and most certainly much more needs to be done to address that, but it's a separate issue. I don't know how financially viable it is for the Froggies to be doling out the massive salaries they are, but even if they can sustain it, with JIFF rules in place as well as the international selection carrots any wage disparity shouldn't have too damaging an effect. Either way though wages can't stay as high as they've gone.

[weegie01]

Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

You still need to be able to do opposed training and keep enough players to cover multiple competitions and injuries.

Plus, putting more players out of work shouldn't be the answer here.

On the first point, if there are fewer players needed per game squad, fewer will be needed overall to cover competitions and injuries. I do not know what the relationship between English pro teams and others is compared to up here, but if there is a shortage for training Scottish clubs use academy players, and if there is still not enough, they bring in players from affiliated semi pro clubs.

Either income has to go up dramatically, or costs need to be significantly cut back, or a combination of the two. In the absence of the first, players are going to feel some pain either in lower salaries, or fewer players employed. Neither are great, but rather lose something than everything if a club goes to the wall.

For clarity, I am not saying the players take all the pain, just that some is likely.

[sockwithaticket]

A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

[Kawazaki]

… says the supporter of the club that weaponised the financial model for English club rugby …

Not really. Virtually all the best players at Saracens were developed by Saracens from their teenage years. And doesn't a little bit of you think it's actually a good idea to encourage players to start their own businesses, be entrepreneurial and have interests outside of rugby?

We need more clubs that look after their players properly, not less. You'd have to be a real hater not to acknowledge that Saracens are probably the best club in the league at developing players.

Not quite, Sarries imported loads of experienced players to generate a platform for success and coach/teach/role model the development of younger players. It wasn't exactly all internal development. Likewise the money factor isn't always about bringing in players, but about keeping them to maintain or build upon successs. But the issue people have with Sarries isn't that they encourage players to have outside interests.

Given the outside interests were pretty much exclusively why they broke the cap then I suggest you're mistaken. Saracens never paid more in salaries than the cap allowed.

And you're wrong about imports as well, or at least it was never as high as you think. For example, Sale have imported far more South Africans in the last few years than Saracens every did except with Sale the Saffas are already fully capped test players. With Saracens, many of the imported players were not capped, a few actually played for England you might recall. But Sale don't get criticised largely because they don't win anything. Great coaching and a great culture are why Saracens won things.

[Kawazaki]

A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

I just hope the owners get what's coming to them. They really are scumbags. Apparently, the players and staff and no doubt a few fans, drank the club bars dry on Friday night after the match. I doubt any money changed hands.

[inactionman]

Not really. Virtually all the best players at Saracens were developed by Saracens from their teenage years. And doesn't a little bit of you think it's actually a good idea to encourage players to start their own businesses, be entrepreneurial and have interests outside of rugby?

We need more clubs that look after their players properly, not less. You'd have to be a real hater not to acknowledge that Saracens are probably the best club in the league at developing players.

Not quite, Sarries imported loads of experienced players to generate a platform for success and coach/teach/role model the development of younger players. It wasn't exactly all internal development. Likewise the money factor isn't always about bringing in players, but about keeping them to maintain or build upon successs. But the issue people have with Sarries isn't that they encourage players to have outside interests.

Given the outside interests were pretty much exclusively why they broke the cap then I suggest you're mistaken. Saracens never paid more in salaries than the cap allowed.

And you're wrong about imports as well, or at least it was never as high as you think. For example, Sale have imported far more South Africans in the last few years than Saracens every did except with Sale the Saffas are already fully capped test players. With Saracens, many of the imported players were not capped, a few actually played for England you might recall. But Sale don't get criticised largely because they don't win anything. Great coaching and a great culture are why Saracens won things.

I complete agree that pastoral and outside commercial guidance and support is a fundamentally good thing, but it's quite disingenuous to omit the fact that having a South African captain as reserve hooker is not going to happen if he wasn't getting his palms greased off-the-books. Whether this is declared salary, houses or preferential shares, doesn't make much difference - as the regulations made clear.

[inactionman]

A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

I just hope the owners get what's coming to them. They really are scumbags. Apparently, the players and staff and no doubt a few fans, drank the club bars dry on Friday night after the match. I doubt any money changed hands.

They truly are. Dreadful people, how many hundreds of people are being canned when the cost of living is really hitting, just to make two chancers a little bit wealthier.

[JM2K6]

Brian Moore makes a fairly obvious general point in the Telegraph today, which I had missed to be frank.

Many people advocate reducing subs for various reasons, but as Moore points out, if there are fewer subs, squads are smaller and therefore more affordable. Of itself this will not save struggling clubs, but it would help.

You still need to be able to do opposed training and keep enough players to cover multiple competitions and injuries.

Plus, putting more players out of work shouldn't be the answer here.

On the first point, if there are fewer players needed per game squad, fewer will be needed overall to cover competitions and injuries. I do not know what the relationship between English pro teams and others is compared to up here, but if there is a shortage for training Scottish clubs use academy players, and if there is still not enough, they bring in players from affiliated semi pro clubs.

Sorry, you've got that a bit backwards. Fewer subs means players playing more minutes, which means more players required overall to be able to compete in multiple competitions. More workload on individuals during matches means more injuries, more fatigue, and even more need for rest and rotation.

I think we also need to clarify whether "fewer subs" means "fewer substitutions allowed during a match" or "fewer substitutes on the bench". The latter has increased danger to players during a match and is more damaging to players careers. Messing with subs has a real knock on effect with regards to player welfare and the justification for it has always been pretty thin, be it an attempt to make players smaller (it won't make much difference and whatever gains you make will be lost when injured players are under pressure to play on) or to cut costs.

Either income has to go up dramatically, or costs need to be significantly cut back, or a combination of the two. In the absence of the first, players are going to feel some pain either in lower salaries, or fewer players employed. Neither are great, but rather lose something than everything if a club goes to the wall.

For clarity, I am not saying the players take all the pain, just that some is likely.

I agree with this. The current salaries are unsustainable. However the biggest problem in English rugby is that it's a bunch of businesses all trying to maximise income, loosely grouped under an umbrella that's also part-owned by a bunch of people who are there purely to squeeze more money out of it. Meanwhile, smaller sides have stars in their eyes and think they can make it big a la the football sides, and our lower tiers are run by absolute madmen pissing money away in a massive gamble that will not pay off. Cutting subs isn't going to change that, it's band-aid at best. The only reasonable way to fix is this require a total rethink of the professional sport in this country, and turkeys will not vote for Christmas.

Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

[Iain(bobbity)]

A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

You probaby saw, but the ground caretaker lives on site and will have to move out by tonight.

[fishfoodie]

A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

You probaby saw, but the ground caretaker lives on site and will have to move out by tonight.

PRL owe the staff left out of pocket in this fraud, first; an explanation, of how these toe rags were allowed to run the club; & then secondly, frankly, they need to put their hands in their pocket, & give them money to tied themselves over, because they'll get nothing from the liquidation.

[Kawazaki]

Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

[robmatic]

Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

The TV deal for the Premiership must be relatively poor.

[fishfoodie]

Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

The TV deal for the Premiership must be relatively poor.

Is it down to PRL, or BT that only one game a day gets televised ?

It really jarred this weekend, that I could watch an entire weekend of URC games, but only a one or two Premiership ones.

[inactionman]

A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

You probaby saw, but the ground caretaker lives on site and will have to move out by tonight.

This just gets worse.

[PornDog]

Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

I get where you're coming from, but you can't really argue it was undersold when the entire project was massively loss making long before CVC got involved. They paid a large amount of money for something that loses money every year.

The clubs/prl most definitely mortgaged their futures, and it may prove to be a mortgage they can't afford, but I don't think you can argue the deal itself was an unfair one.

[Torquemada 1420]

Sorry, you've got that a bit backwards. Fewer subs means players playing more minutes, which means more players required overall to be able to compete in multiple competitions. More workload on individuals during matches means more injuries, more fatigue, and even more need for rest and rotation.

I think we also need to clarify whether "fewer subs" means "fewer substitutions allowed during a match" or "fewer substitutes on the bench". The latter has increased danger to players during a match and is more damaging to players careers. Messing with subs has a real knock on effect with regards to player welfare and the justification for it has always been pretty thin, be it an attempt to make players smaller (it won't make much difference and whatever gains you make will be lost when injured players are under pressure to play on) or to cut costs.

Either income has to go up dramatically, or costs need to be significantly cut back, or a combination of the two. In the absence of the first, players are going to feel some pain either in lower salaries, or fewer players employed. Neither are great, but rather lose something than everything if a club goes to the wall.

For clarity, I am not saying the players take all the pain, just that some is likely.

This is the bind we've got into. I am anti subs (fewer substitutions allowed) except for injury
- it's the single greatest cause of there being no space on the pitch and why the game is less exciting. Make the fatties stay on for 80 and then we'd see a totally different product.
- it's a joke that a quality prop (say) works over his opposite and then they simply bring on someone else. Or, the reverse e.g. if Os du Randt had had to play an 80 min game ever, he'd have been half as effective
- as weegie points out, it means bigger squads = greater £ overhead
- it allows the wealthy clubs to hoard the best players. Smaller squads = better distribution

BUT......... as you highlight, we cannot do this whilst there are too many matches in a season. So the other factor in quality over quantity is reducing the playing schedule.

[Kawazaki]

Any solution that doesn't address the fundamental governnance of the sport and the pyramid itself is a waste of time.

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

I get where you're coming from, but you can't really argue it was undersold when the entire project was massively loss making long before CVC got involved. They paid a large amount of money for something that loses money every year.

The clubs/prl most definitely mortgaged their futures, and it may prove to be a mortgage they can't afford, but I don't think you can argue the deal itself was an unfair one.

The Premiership club owners have put in about £500m since 1996. CVC were buying a chunk of that. CVC haven't done anything wrong but what they have bought doesn't have an end date or any commitment in the same way a club owner has to commit - they get 27% now come what may. The Premiership is a distressed asset and CVC saw a chance to buy. The frustrating thing about all this is that collectively, the Premiership has access to some of the smartest business IP in England - they just don't talk to each other let alone look out for each other.

[eldanielfire]

Not really. Virtually all the best players at Saracens were developed by Saracens from their teenage years. And doesn't a little bit of you think it's actually a good idea to encourage players to start their own businesses, be entrepreneurial and have interests outside of rugby?

We need more clubs that look after their players properly, not less. You'd have to be a real hater not to acknowledge that Saracens are probably the best club in the league at developing players.

Not quite, Sarries imported loads of experienced players to generate a platform for success and coach/teach/role model the development of younger players. It wasn't exactly all internal development. Likewise the money factor isn't always about bringing in players, but about keeping them to maintain or build upon successs. But the issue people have with Sarries isn't that they encourage players to have outside interests.

Given the outside interests were pretty much exclusively why they broke the cap then I suggest you're mistaken. Saracens never paid more in salaries than the cap allowed.

And you're wrong about imports as well, or at least it was never as high as you think. For example, Sale have imported far more South Africans in the last few years than Saracens every did except with Sale the Saffas are already fully capped test players. With Saracens, many of the imported players were not capped, a few actually played for England you might recall. But Sale don't get criticised largely because they don't win anything. Great coaching and a great culture are why Saracens won things.

But they were breaking it via assets and sly investments. So stop trying to move goalposts to deflet what a corrupt club Sarries are and how tainted their silverware is.

[Torquemada 1420]

Staff have been told to collect their items from Sixways before gates to the ground are locked at 16:30 BST.

[eldanielfire]

Yep, 100%.

However, CVC are now taking nearly 30% of the commercial income that the Premiership generates. And in return for that they have to do nothing. Zip. There's now simply not enough pie left after their cut to split 13 ways. Even 10 ways is probably too much. CVC will effectively replace about 4 clubs. Now, this might be 4D chess and all part of the CVC masterplan, who knows, but what I do know is that commercially, English professional rugby is being massively undersold.

I get where you're coming from, but you can't really argue it was undersold when the entire project was massively loss making long before CVC got involved. They paid a large amount of money for something that loses money every year.

The clubs/prl most definitely mortgaged their futures, and it may prove to be a mortgage they can't afford, but I don't think you can argue the deal itself was an unfair one.

The Premiership club owners have put in about £500m since 1996. CVC were buying a chunk of that. CVC haven't done anything wrong but what they have bought doesn't have an end date or any commitment in the same way a club owner has to commit - they get 27% now come what may. The Premiership is a distressed asset and CVC saw a chance to buy. The frustrating thing about all this is that collectively, the Premiership has access to some of the smartest business IP in England - they just don't talk to each other let alone look out for each other.

Makes you wonder why they sold a stake to CVC in the first place. It also suggests that the whole investment banker saves the sport model because invetsment bankers are so smart at making money is not actually a thing and rugby was already at it's financial limits previously..

[sockwithaticket]

A mate of mine is down at Glaws doing a session this morning. Glaws have been told there's virtually 0% their match against Worcester will go ahead next weekend.
All Worcester staff have been told to collect any personal possessions by 4:30pm today as all the gates will be locked at 5:00pm
They are done for.

Awful for the staff, they've done nothing wrong.

Obviously this has a financial implication for all teams who've yet to play a home fixture against Worcester, but Glaws must feel particularly irked having had a fixture cancelled last season too.

You probaby saw, but the ground caretaker lives on site and will have to move out by tonight.

Ugh, I hadn't, but why wouldn't there be another element to this vortex of suffering? Poor bugger.