Prospective Worcester owners accuse RFU of trying to impose ‘over-onerous terms’
The Warriors and Wasps both entering administration earlier this season.
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
Worcester Warriors’ prospective new owners have accused the Rugby Football Union of “seeking to impose onerous operational conditions” on them.
Atlas Worcester Warriors RFC Limited also say the “conditions, commercial restrictions and barriers” would prevent Worcester’s admission to the Championship for next season.
Worcester and Wasps both lost their Gallagher Premiership status after entering administration earlier this term, and it is understood there are now doubts whether or not Warriors will be granted Championship status.
“The RFU board will be meeting to discuss this matter on Friday and we won’t be commenting formally on a decision which has not been made,” an RFU spokesperson said.
Atlas say they received clear indications that the RFU was satisfied on their financial due-diligence aspects, and claim the governing body issued them with a draft agreement.
Atlas’ founding directors are ex-Worcester Warriors chief executive Jim O’Toole and James Sandford, chief executive of Atlas Sport Tech.
“The RFU are now seeking to impose onerous operational conditions, commercial restrictions and barriers that would prevent our admittance to, and participation in, the RFU Championship for the 2023/24 season and seeking to rely on a lack of ‘financial due-diligence’, which in our view is patently untrue,” Atlas said.
“The position being taken by the RFU gives, in our view, too much control and oversight to the RFU, and such control and oversight is over and above what we consider is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
“We appreciate that the RFU are now seeking to scrutinise the position of new owners, as is their obligation to do so.
“However, in our view it is unacceptable to punish those looking to satisfy creditors, community, fans and staff for the mistakes of others in circumstances where we have evidenced to the RFU a strong management team, a detailed business-plan and evidence of funding and sustainability.
“Unfortunately, in order for rugby to be viable at Worcester, we cannot accept terms that are excessive, unreasonable, unworkable and which would hinder any commercial business that is needed to support elite men’s and women’s rugby.
The position being taken by the RFU gives, in our view, too much control and oversight to the RFU, and such control and oversight is over and above what we consider is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
“As a result, should the RFU not find the flexibility to remove the over-onerous terms they are seeking to impose on Atlas, we will have no alternative but to conclude the deal with Begbies Traynor (administrators) without the approval of the RFU and without returning elite level rugby to Worcester.”
It is believed that the RFU’s Club Financial Viability Group, whose recommendation is set to be discussed by the board, has not been satisfied with information provided.
It is also thought that while the RFU supports a continuation of the rugby club in Worcester, the administrators could be asked to consider alternative options/bids.
A decision will be announced by Twickenham chiefs on Friday.