Wasps new stadium plan (2 Viewers)

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
To be fair to them a quick look at the Wasps boards show most of them are far from happy about this situation. Apart from Shugs of course who thinks its all brilliant and they'll be in the Premiership in no time at all
 

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
Awaiting Shugs: “it’s all a conspiracy, Chris Holland only wants what’s best for Wasps and Worcester. Looking forward to sharing six ways with Worcester and the community”
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Am I right in thinking Holland is Richardsons mate who he transferred the training ground to ??

To be fair they hated each other so much in the the end they literally wouldn’t be in the same room together
 

Nick

Administrator
Not sure they will block it, doubt Chris Holland would have thrown money at it if he didn't already know it was a go-er.
 

Nick

Administrator
FvscJyHacAc07SA
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Not sure they will block it, doubt Chris Holland would have thrown money at it if he didn't already know it was a go-er.

The RFU are much like the EFL. Incompetent bottlers, basically.

It's an absolute stitch up of a(nother) club by Wasps owners.

If Holland doesn't fund it (by in effect securing his loan against the ground) then the Atlas deal for Warriors falls through and Worcester at least get a slim second chance at finding someone who can keep them going.

It's as bent as a nine bob note, which is why the RFU will almost certainly wave it through.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It seems from an article today Richardson is arguing his loans should be classed as a rugby creditor - he has lodged legal action against a former directors solicitor firm

The wasps new consortium are arguing image rights fees (basically a dodge to get out of the salary cap) are not valid for payment

in other news Shugs is unhappy at Worcester and Coventry fans ruining the forums with distortions of the and should look at their own failed businesses rather than one that’s getting ready to thrive and offer people great rugby. Worcester fans should get on board the wasps train as the only way of saving rugby in Worcester
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Tbf wouldn't you?

Doesn't mean he will, but if he ends up stalling the resurrected Wasps enough that they can't take their place in the league, maybe he wasn't so bad after all ;)
Richardson’s legal action is against his advisers, not Wasps so won’t affect them. That argument will be separate from the rugby creditors one.

To be classed as a rugby creditor, a creditor has to be entirely or predominantly reliant on rugby income. Players and equipment supplier can easily show that, I doubt Richardson could.
 

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
was
It seems from an article today Richardson is arguing his loans should be classed as a rugby creditor - he has lodged legal action against a former directors solicitor firm

The wasps new consortium are arguing image rights fees (basically a dodge to get out of the salary cap) are not valid for payment

in other news Shugs is unhappy at Worcester and Coventry fans ruining the forums with distortions of the and should look at their own failed businesses rather than one that’s getting ready to thrive and offer people great rugby. Worcester fans should get on board the wasps train as the only way of saving rugby in Worcester
fucking hell - Shugs is trotting out the same shit he was saying 9 years ago. Surely there’s got to be a point where you think - “we’re the common denominator”
 

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
This Richardson bloke seems to like court he always seems to be arguing with somebody.
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member
Did the bond holders get much of their investment back in the end?

Like everything with wasps no one has a clue. it appears very messy as some have been told they are getting paid others not. No one knows how much they are going to get.

Basicly like everything wasps touches it goes to shit
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Richardson’s legal action is against his advisers, not Wasps so won’t affect them. That argument will be separate from the rugby creditors one.

To be classed as a rugby creditor, a creditor has to be entirely or predominantly reliant on rugby income. Players and equipment supplier can easily show that, I doubt Richardson could.

One thing I do know from a source that’s 99% reliable is Richardson and Holland were at loggerheads for months before the demise and in the end was so bad they couldn’t be seen in the same room together
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
It seems from an article today Richardson is arguing his loans should be classed as a rugby creditor - he has lodged legal action against a former directors solicitor firm

The wasps new consortium are arguing image rights fees (basically a dodge to get out of the salary cap) are not valid for payment

in other news Shugs is unhappy at Worcester and Coventry fans ruining the forums with distortions of the and should look at their own failed businesses rather than one that’s getting ready to thrive and offer people great rugby. Worcester fans should get on board the wasps train as the only way of saving rugby in Worcester
The image rights fees, assume that’s money still owed to ex-players?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
I don't feel sorry for Richardson as such but I have a degree of empathy in that he was the one who actually put some money in. He'll see it as he's made a loss and Holland has picked up a training ground and the club's branding.
 

Nick

Administrator
I don't feel sorry for Richardson as such but I have a degree of empathy in that he was the one who actually put some money in. He'll see it as he's made a loss and Holland has picked up a training ground and the club's branding.

Who paid for the training ground in the first place though?
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
I don't feel sorry for Richardson as such but I have a degree of empathy in that he was the one who actually put some money in. He'll see it as he's made a loss and Holland has picked up a training ground and the club's branding.
But with investments you're told the value can go down as well as up and your capital is at risk. That's why the returns are higher.

If you provide a service to someone as part of a contract then it's a fair expectation to be paid for those services. I'd certainly say they've got a much stronger claim to be recompensed.

And I don't agree with rugby/football creditor rules - I think if you've provided the service you should have the same right as any other provider. But I think they should all take precedence over a capital investor.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top