RugbyRebels

A sad day.


Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

And they have finally, finally, been put into administration. I hope it gives the basis for someone to nail the shysters' balls to the wall and take back what they stole.

Puja

Only problem with administration is that it takes time. They have to go through a full process to identify the best bidder for the club but to do that have to allow a time for bids to come in. They have to do a top to bottom valuation. In theory it's a good thing as long term it should get Worcester set up properly but in the short term they aren't likely to be back on the field and playing again soon. Unless somebody opts to pump cash in.

Are all Worcester's fixtures now voided for the season no matter what happens? Should the club find a financial solution where will they be at the start of next season? Are all their contracts null and void? . . . . .

There are so many questions now.

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:14 am Only problem with administration is that it takes time. They have to go through a full process to identify the best bidder for the club but to do that have to allow a time for bids to come in. They have to do a top to bottom valuation. In theory it's a good thing as long term it should get Worcester set up properly but in the short term they aren't likely to be back on the field and playing again soon. Unless somebody opts to pump cash in.

I'm under the impression that it also means that they could reverse the asset stripping, write-off the debts, charge the shysters, and sell to one of the existing bidders reasonably quickly - depending on what the administrator wants to do.

I absolutely reserve the right to be wrong.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:38 am Are all Worcester's fixtures now voided for the season no matter what happens? Should the club find a financial solution where will they be at the start of next season? Are all their contracts null and void? . . . . .

There are so many questions now.

IIRC there's a proviso in the regulations whereby if they can solve the administration within something like 6 weeks, they can be let back in - with a 35(?) point penalty. But yes, a big unknown if they'd still have any players at that point, and what the Prem does for teams having a bye weekend in the mean time - not to mention what they'll do with teams who played a Worcester on the brink.
I guess it's possible that, with the administrators in, the RFU lift their ban (assuming the administrators can sort insurance out PDQ)

There will be no "fair" answer; and I have every faith in PRL/RFU to choose the worst options of any available.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:38 am Are all Worcester's fixtures now voided for the season no matter what happens? Should the club find a financial solution where will they be at the start of next season? Are all their contracts null and void? . . . . .

There are so many questions now.

I was wondering that. I'm assuming that, if Worcester rejoin this season, all the games they miss will be registered as 20-0 walkovers. If they don't rejoin, are all of their future games walkovers and Newcastle have to live with being the only team not to get 10 points? Or will all the games be voided and it'll be a 12 team league with two teams taking a bye? Will there be a rearrangement of the calendar so that there's no bye weeks in the second half of the season to reduce the length/maybe take one of the Prem weekends out of the 6N period?

On the contracts, that's a difficult one. As I'm aware, as long as they're still getting paid on the nail each month, the contracts remain valid - there's no obligation in them for players to play, just for them to get paid. And while a rugby man might let players go out of compassion for their careers and because there's no sense in keeping an unhappy player, administrators are likely to be significantly more hard-nosed, as players like Hill, Lawrence (and Hatherell, who I don't believe has managed to leave yet) are part of the value of the club that they're trying to protect.

Puja

Of course if the owners have the best interests of the club at heart they will make sure the land around the ground, which they apparently own separately to the club/ground, but is key to the functioning of a club of this size, will be part of any future deal.

I see there are several separate companies. The one that employs the players has NOT gone into administration apparently. Everything now hinges on whether the players receive their September pay.

It is a weird, contrived mucking fuddle. Some very suspicious motivation is at the heart of the situation.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:11 am I see there are several separate companies. ..
It is a weird, contrived mucking fuddle. Some very suspicious motivation is at the heart of the situation.

A right tangled web woven in recent years, reportedly.
(from daily m..)

The owners of crisis club Worcester Warriors have created a complicated web of 13 companies with links to the club since joining the board of directors in 2018.
In recent months, Colin Goldring and Jason Whittingham have used parts of the network to transfer ownership of the club’s major assets.

When all comes out the wash, hopefully the smell will be sweet.

This is why we needed the administrators in, to clear up the mess and reverse dodgy deals - and to prosecute as necessary.

The (absolutely massive) downside to that is... it'll take a fair bit of time, and the club may not survive the fallout.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:03 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:38 am Are all Worcester's fixtures now voided for the season no matter what happens? Should the club find a financial solution where will they be at the start of next season? Are all their contracts null and void? . . . . .

There are so many questions now.

On the contracts, that's a difficult one. As I'm aware, as long as they're still getting paid on the nail each month, the contracts remain valid - there's no obligation in them for players to play, just for them to get paid. And while a rugby man might let players go out of compassion for their careers and because there's no sense in keeping an unhappy player, administrators are likely to be significantly more hard-nosed, as players like Hill, Lawrence (and Hatherell, who I don't believe has managed to leave yet) are part of the value of the club that they're trying to protect.

Further details coming out about this clusterfuck: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... -contracts

The RPA originally gave advice that, “if the club enters administration you have the ability to immediately terminate your contract,” only for them to have to recant that because, "The RFU has now confirmed that WRFC Players Limited [the company that you are contracted to] has not entered into administration. You may have seen that a different company WRFC Trading Limited has entered into administration. We can only imagine how frustrating this news will be and we will be speaking with all stakeholders to urge them to find a reasonable solution for the players as soon as possible. We will be in contact again as soon as we have further information."

Surely it can't be viable for the club to be a different entity than the ownership of the players' contracts? I'm fairly certain that that kind of shenanigans is against the rules in football (wasn't it Carlos Tevez who had that at one point?) and I'm amazed it's allowed in rugby.

Either way, it appears that players are now only free to leave if they don't get paid today, file a dispute, and then are still not paid within 14 days. Poor sods. Especially players like DVDM and Sutherland who need game time if they're going to be playing internationals in November.

Puja

Telegraph is reporting that HMRC has refuse to postpone the winding up and Worcester (the playing bit) will now enter liquidation.

jimKRFC wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:57 pm Telegraph is reporting that HMRC has refuse to postpone the winding up and Worcester (the playing bit) will now enter liquidation.

From a non-rugby perspective, I absolutely can't blame them for wanting their money back now. Who would want to bet on Worcester getting rescued, given the mess that the shysters have made with the asset stripping?

Just seen that Worcester players are not going to get paid today, so they can hand in their 14 days notice, but the winding up petition on Wednesday includes the company that pays the players and, if that goes through, all contracts are cancelled and players are free agents: https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/22 ... wednesday/

Puja

Can the RFU and the other Premiership clubs sit back and watch this happen? Due legal processes must follow I suppose but the episode, by definition, is bringing the game into disrepute. Even if the club cannot be rescued surely steps must be announced to stop it happening again. Reaction just seems so tame and toothless.

Unbelievable: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/worceste ... shameless/

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:36 pm Unbelievable: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/worceste ... shameless/

Wow, that's mindbogglingly bad. "It's not our fault people refused to take pay cuts and more fans wouldn't turn up whilst we robbed the club blind behind the scenes."

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:58 pm

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:36 pm Unbelievable: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/worceste ... shameless/

Wow, that's mindbogglingly bad. "It's not our fault people refused to take pay cuts and more fans wouldn't turn up whilst we robbed the club blind behind the scenes."

It's so passive aggressive. "Thank you to the DCMS, but sorry that post-pandemic recovery wasn't overnight and we couldn't pay them back immediately like clearly those bitches expected".

Still, at least Kvesic still has a sense of humour about it, although gods only know how:


Puja