I think we all know one of them!
Wasps downward spiral... (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter CCFC54321
- Start date
I think we all know one of them!
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
2 weeks to go till their last game of the season.
Should go into default if nothing changes around a week after that.
The tension is gripping.
Should go into default if nothing changes around a week after that.
The tension is gripping.
But London wasps have tweeted tonight a gate of 28,987Another full house tonight….oh and sadly another lossView attachment 24814
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
Are they playing the season out first before they decide their fate, their last game away at Leicester and if they lose that I think although not 100% that they will have no European rugby next season too.
That was 28 paid for 987 freebies
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Did you go then?
FulltimeWum
Well-Known Member
Top 8 get Euro Big Cup, others get Euro not so big cup.
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
So finishing bottom gets you a European place
joke of a league, no relegation either,whats the point!
FulltimeWum
Well-Known Member
There are 3 South African teams in the European Cup next year, I don't know the ins and out of the impact they will have financially when they next go for a TV deal but can only presume it will mean more cash.
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
But not for Wasps as they won't be in it hopefully
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Is there any part of rugby that isn't a complete joke. European Cup but with South African teams. How does anyone take this seriously.
shepardo01
Well-Known Member
Heard they've lined up Graham Norton to present the shows.
Kneeza
Well-Known Member
).
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The rugby authorities are making the second tier unviable as a fully professional sport and therefore ring fencing the top division on a permanent basis without actually saying so. Once they get to 14 teams in the premiership that will be it.
The South African teams being involved is a drive to increase revenue probably driven by the likes of cvc and rich owners in the respective leagues. More money means less chance of those promoted competing. All about globalisation and TV rights.
The rfu have slashed the funding to the championship. That of course means less ability to pay players. Teams, including Cov, are having to cut their more expensive players to stay afloat. Most championship teams do not get the crowds Cov do and they are letting players go
More money in the top division means the teams there will hoover up the top talent - sound familiar. Associating of academy areas to particular clubs allocates that talent effectively. Will mean greater reliance on player loans controlled by the premiership club In an area to get the top talent. Teams in lower division will effectively be linked to a premiership team even if not a formal relationship
Less money in the championship will mean less investment in infrastructure which means clubs won't meet the regulations for promotion. Clubs in the championship are not going to be able to invest in infrastructure worthy enough if they can't get the income and crowds. Of course if promoted a team could rent a ground, probably from an existing premiership team - more money. If the ground requirements don't match up then no promotion. Self regulating the top division with little effort
It seems to me the premiership and rfu are ring fencing the top division in every way they can to milk the sport of revenue. That is now being extended to international club competitions. Meaning from the championship down clubs become less able to afford fully professional players and have no real prospect of reaching the top table once premiership has 14 teams. Within that division, though effectively free from ever being relegated the division will be split between those clubs competing with the top European and South African teams and those that don't because of globalisation and TV rights and the money that brings.
The above will of course make all teams in the premiership more valuable, which may well make those teams that fail financially more attractive to buyers. That would include wasps, who as a rugby team have a 50 year lease within the group structure to play at the arena
Might have some of the elements not quite right am sure there are others with better knowledge of how rugby works
It is wrong, it stinks, it is unfair but driven by money and greed. The rest of English rugby is paying the price for it
The South African teams being involved is a drive to increase revenue probably driven by the likes of cvc and rich owners in the respective leagues. More money means less chance of those promoted competing. All about globalisation and TV rights.
The rfu have slashed the funding to the championship. That of course means less ability to pay players. Teams, including Cov, are having to cut their more expensive players to stay afloat. Most championship teams do not get the crowds Cov do and they are letting players go
More money in the top division means the teams there will hoover up the top talent - sound familiar. Associating of academy areas to particular clubs allocates that talent effectively. Will mean greater reliance on player loans controlled by the premiership club In an area to get the top talent. Teams in lower division will effectively be linked to a premiership team even if not a formal relationship
Less money in the championship will mean less investment in infrastructure which means clubs won't meet the regulations for promotion. Clubs in the championship are not going to be able to invest in infrastructure worthy enough if they can't get the income and crowds. Of course if promoted a team could rent a ground, probably from an existing premiership team - more money. If the ground requirements don't match up then no promotion. Self regulating the top division with little effort
It seems to me the premiership and rfu are ring fencing the top division in every way they can to milk the sport of revenue. That is now being extended to international club competitions. Meaning from the championship down clubs become less able to afford fully professional players and have no real prospect of reaching the top table once premiership has 14 teams. Within that division, though effectively free from ever being relegated the division will be split between those clubs competing with the top European and South African teams and those that don't because of globalisation and TV rights and the money that brings.
The above will of course make all teams in the premiership more valuable, which may well make those teams that fail financially more attractive to buyers. That would include wasps, who as a rugby team have a 50 year lease within the group structure to play at the arena
Might have some of the elements not quite right am sure there are others with better knowledge of how rugby works
It is wrong, it stinks, it is unfair but driven by money and greed. The rest of English rugby is paying the price for it
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The rugby authorities are making the second tier unviable as a fully professional sport and therefore ring fencing the top division on a permanent basis without actually saying so. Once they get to 14 teams in the premiership that will be it.
The South African teams being involved is a drive to increase revenue probably driven by the likes of cvc and rich owners in the respective leagues. More money means less chance of those promoted competing. All about globalisation and TV rights.
The rfu have slashed the funding to the championship. That of course means less ability to pay players. Teams, including Cov, are having to cut their more expensive players to stay afloat. Most championship teams do not get the crowds Cov do and they are letting players go
More money in the top division means the teams there will hoover up the top talent - sound familiar. Associating of academy areas to particular clubs allocates that talent effectively. Will mean greater reliance on player loans controlled by the premiership club In an area to get the top talent. Teams in lower division will effectively be linked to a premiership team even if not a formal relationship
Less money in the championship will mean less investment in infrastructure which means clubs won't meet the regulations for promotion. Clubs in the championship are not going to be able to invest in infrastructure worthy enough if they can't get the income and crowds. Of course if promoted a team could rent a ground, probably from an existing premiership team - more money. If the ground requirements don't match up then no promotion. Self regulating the top division with little effort
It seems to me the premiership and rfu are ring fencing the top division in every way they can to milk the sport of revenue. That is now being extended to international club competitions. Meaning from the championship down clubs become less able to afford fully professional players and have no real prospect of reaching the top table once premiership has 14 teams. Within that division, though effectively free from ever being relegated the division will be split between those clubs competing with the top European and South African teams and those that don't because of globalisation and TV rights and the money that brings.
The above will of course make all teams in the premiership more valuable, which may well make those teams that fail financially more attractive to buyers. That would include wasps, who as a rugby team have a 50 year lease within the group structure to play at the arena
Might have some of the elements not quite right am sure there are others with better knowledge of how rugby works
It is wrong, it stinks, it is unfair but driven by money and greed. The rest of English rugby is paying the price for it
A sport that can’t get over the oiks’ preferred sport being more popular. Rugby in this country is just not going to match football for popularity or financial pulling power.
duffer
Well-Known Member
This isn't about football versus rugby and I don't get why people get so bogged down in that argument. It's possible to play and/or watch and enjoy either, both, or neither.
And anyone who thinks it was always a sport for toffs doesn't know the history of the teams from the Welsh valleys or the English mining villages, or the south-west of the country. Or indeed in this city.
Where I'd agree the game is going wrong though, is following football down the path of big money. We can all see that only works well for a few clubs at the top and everyone else gets screwed.
Football is bent out of shape, a sports-washing billionaire's playground, with a governance model from top to bottom that isn't fit for purpose; we've seen the effect of that for ourselves.
Rugby is trying to follow quickly behind, which is something no one should want. It's nothing to do with the players and supporters though.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
you could also make an argument that it only works for football because it is such a hugely popular sport globally. It could turn out to be a very dangerous path for rugby to follow, the global sports rights market is collapsing with broadcasters realising that very few sports actually produce subscribers.
we're seeing sports like cricket now desperately trying to get the exposure provided by FTA as years on subscription only services has damaged the product.
its a huge gamble and one they didn't need to take, most likely a result of CVCs involvement. They might be wise to look at CVCs involvement in other sports and how the position they left those sports in once they'd made what they could out of them.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Like football its economy is just a reflection of the economy at large isn't it really?The rugby authorities are making the second tier unviable as a fully professional sport and therefore ring fencing the top division on a permanent basis without actually saying so. Once they get to 14 teams in the premiership that will be it.
The South African teams being involved is a drive to increase revenue probably driven by the likes of cvc and rich owners in the respective leagues. More money means less chance of those promoted competing. All about globalisation and TV rights.
The rfu have slashed the funding to the championship. That of course means less ability to pay players. Teams, including Cov, are having to cut their more expensive players to stay afloat. Most championship teams do not get the crowds Cov do and they are letting players go
More money in the top division means the teams there will hoover up the top talent - sound familiar. Associating of academy areas to particular clubs allocates that talent effectively. Will mean greater reliance on player loans controlled by the premiership club In an area to get the top talent. Teams in lower division will effectively be linked to a premiership team even if not a formal relationship
Less money in the championship will mean less investment in infrastructure which means clubs won't meet the regulations for promotion. Clubs in the championship are not going to be able to invest in infrastructure worthy enough if they can't get the income and crowds. Of course if promoted a team could rent a ground, probably from an existing premiership team - more money. If the ground requirements don't match up then no promotion. Self regulating the top division with little effort
It seems to me the premiership and rfu are ring fencing the top division in every way they can to milk the sport of revenue. That is now being extended to international club competitions. Meaning from the championship down clubs become less able to afford fully professional players and have no real prospect of reaching the top table once premiership has 14 teams. Within that division, though effectively free from ever being relegated the division will be split between those clubs competing with the top European and South African teams and those that don't because of globalisation and TV rights and the money that brings.
The above will of course make all teams in the premiership more valuable, which may well make those teams that fail financially more attractive to buyers. That would include wasps, who as a rugby team have a 50 year lease within the group structure to play at the arena
Might have some of the elements not quite right am sure there are others with better knowledge of how rugby works
It is wrong, it stinks, it is unfair but driven by money and greed. The rest of English rugby is paying the price for it
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
They are still losing in the region of 10m a year regardless of tv deals and no relegation, it won't last and will have to remodel their business if they want to survive.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Strange but the wasps holdings group accounts for 2021 were filed on time. But the accounts for ACL, IEC, and ACL 2006 due 31/03 still outstanding at companies house. ACL of course is the company that owns the lease, owes 23m (I think) of the bond finance to wasps finance plc, operates the stadium through owning IEC, guarantees the bond etc.
If they don't have the figures for these subsidiaries then how can they file and sign off the wasps holdings ones on time. Wonder what is going on ? Is the due diligence going on nothing to do with a loan but a potential sale of the stadium and its operation (wasps rugby have 50 year lease to be there so are secure tenants )? Or are assets being moved around for reasons of refinancing?
If they don't have the figures for these subsidiaries then how can they file and sign off the wasps holdings ones on time. Wonder what is going on ? Is the due diligence going on nothing to do with a loan but a potential sale of the stadium and its operation (wasps rugby have 50 year lease to be there so are secure tenants )? Or are assets being moved around for reasons of refinancing?
Last edited:
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
Thought it was a 250 year lease they were given. Could a potential sale involve CCFC?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Acl got extended 250 year lease. But being a separate group company they gave sub lease to wasps rugby of 50 years
Wasps rugby being wasps holdings Ltd which owns acl
Creates value in the lease.
Wasps rugby being wasps holdings Ltd which owns acl
Creates value in the lease.
Gynnsthetonic
Well-Known Member
Are they allowed to sell though or does the freeholder have a say who owns the lease, for example if CCFC wanted to purchase it could CCC put a block on it
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Sisu won’t be buying the lease. Frankly who’d want them to - there is no money available as it is
Kneeza
Well-Known Member
And hasn't watched Julian Fellowes' The English Game on Netflix.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
My private school experience says otherwise-no football allowed because it’s a ‘hooligan sport’ in the words of the staff. I mean especially in England where the game split along a class divide because of the refusal to allow professionalism by the RFU. A lot of Cov’s past talent came through the grammar and then private schools also.
Go on the Wasps forum and there’s a weird bitterness about football’s popularity.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Pretty ironic really as one of its alumni was a successful footballer, another formed the specials and another was a glamour model
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You’re forgetting someone
That didn't bother WASPS!
So 7,000 people who ‘purchased’ tickets didn’t bother turning up?
duffer
Well-Known Member
And my modern comprehensive school experience says the opposite, with Neil Back, Danny Grewcock and Tom Wood all having pretty stellar careers (and a whole lot of other mates who played for local grassroots teams). None of them are exactly posh.
At Coventry RFC they generally update the CCFC scores on the tannoy, because there are a lot there like me who support both clubs. There's no sneering there, except maybe in general at some of the diving and shithousing that funnily enough a lot of footy fans don't like either.
I get that you're seeing it solely as a posh boys game, but I think you're maybe projecting your own bitterness here rather than reflecting the reality; there's still a decent mix of all types in my experience.
I can't speak for Wasps fans, but they're hardly a typical bunch and maybe they're also reacting to what we say about them as a club. Either way I've certainly never felt that I was in the wrong social class to go to a Cov RFC game, or to pop in for a pint at my local grassroots club; the fact that I also support a football team isn't considered remarkable either.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It's certainly fair to say that Wales saw Rugby as anything but an upper class sport. England maybe developed differently in some places however - amateur days meant you had to be able to afford to play Union, and is also why Wales lost a lot of talent to League. Also fair to say Union played more at 'posher' schools but, of course, Coventry as a hotbed of industry had employment opportunities that meant players would come here and the club could also place players in convenient jobs too. From what I hear about the old games v Moseley, they weren't exactly an upper class contest either!
Agree it's not an us v them as fans, although it's an everybody v Wasps!
Hmmm, a lot of words to say I sort of agree with you, but BSB on the school level is not entirely wrong either.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Which is fair enough, but generally speaking in England union has largely been driven by private schools originating from how the code split in the first place. League is only really big in England because the other unions didn’t go along with the weird class divide. At least at the private school I went to, and others I know well, football is still banned. Not to forget the rugby crowd at uni drinking pints out of arse cracks each week.
Perhaps I have been pretty unlucky, but each time I dip in to either national or domestic rugby there’s some reference to it being the ‘civilised’ sport along with Nigel Owen’s famous ‘come on this isn’t soccer’.
LastGarrison
Well-Known Member
You can add Leon Lloyd and Adam Balding to that list as well.
Andy Goode was a Henry’s boy though.