Prem Round 3

First topic message reminder :

Harlequins Starting XV

1. Joe Marler
2. Jack Walker - Captain
3. Wilco Louw
4. George Hammond
5. Irne Herbst
6. Jack Kenningham
7. Will Evans
8. Archie White

9. Lewis Gjaltema
10. Marcus Smith
11. Cadan Murley
12. Lennox Anyanwu
13. Joe Marchant
14. Nick David
15. Tyrone Green

Impact Players
16. George Head
17. Santiago Garcia Botta
18. Simon Kerrod
19. Dino Lamb
20. Matas Jurevicius
21. Danny Care
22. Tommy Allan
23. Luke Northmore

Dombrandt is a big loss at 8 and Botta can be a bit up and down while Kerrod is reverting to TH for the first time in a while, but allowing for injury and international absence it's a good team. Sandy Park is always a tough place to visit, though, so at this point I'd be happy to come away with a BP.

Woohoo 2.5 points thanks - who would have called that at half time

Wwwoah that's a huge call. I'd say that was forward

Nah - not clear and obvious for me

Regardless of the last pass, i thought it was ok especially as the ref had called it a try onfield, what a crazy game!

As have most games in both leagues been this weekend!

What a bizarre call that was at end.

Another instance of a referee deciding a game through incompetence. Any referee who can't see that that pass was forward out of the hands, with the clear words of the TMO pointing it out and the pitch lines providing a useful reference, needs to be sacked with immediate effect.

Rugby union is a tough game to referee. But some decisions are easy. And that was an easy one.

Duty281 wrote:Another instance of a referee deciding a game through incompetence. Any referee who can't see that that pass was forward out of the hands, with the clear words of the TMO pointing it out and the pitch lines providing a useful reference, needs to be sacked with immediate effect.

Rugby union is a tough game to referee. But some decisions are easy. And that was an easy one.

And again. You're wrong.

Having missed the Exeter - Quins game because I was refereeing a festival where my daughters were playing, I’ve now seen the contentious pass for that final try on replay and I’m very disappointed in the ruling. Both of Hogg’s arms are pointing forward at the point of release, and the receiver is actually back-pedalling because he’s overrun.

Two weeks in a row the Quins result is decided by a ref making an odd decision at a death. It’s getting quite annoying.

Argh results decided by the ref?! Only if you discount every other second of the game. Why not say the result was decided by players dropping off tackles.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Argh results decided by the ref?! Only if you discount every other second of the game. Why not say the result was decided by players dropping off tackles.

Conceding 5 tries and 38 points before that point doesn't indicate the level of defence I'm sure Quins would be wanting.

To be fair, i thought one of Murley try earlier in the game was marginally forward as well.

Is all swings and rounabouts

No 7&1/2 wrote:Argh results decided by the ref?! Only if you discount every other second of the game. Why not say the result was decided by players dropping off tackles.

I'm not discounting every other second of the game. 80:47 have been played, Quins lead 42-38, and Exeter throw a forward pass. Only a refereeing error has let the game continue from that point.

Ah got you. So why aren't you saying that Green falling off the tackle on Tshiunza is the reason Harlequins lost? Or when Murley misjudged his tackle and flew into touch? Why is it this 1 decision which is the all prevailing reason for the result?
Why are you ignoring all other mistakes in the game from officials and players? And that's not even being positive and pointing to some great plays from the likes of Woodburn, Ewers, the aforementioned Tshiunza.

The try should not have been dissallowed...imo.

Deadline been and gone for Worcester. Now suspended.

Shame for them, even crazier for it to happen to a team like Wasps though.

Hopefully not a permanent suspension for Wuss. Fingers crossed that it is just a couple of weeks whilst the mess is cleared up.

Just been announced that DCSM (government) want to put Wuss into administration. Great news in the current situation as it makes a sale more likely.

stub wrote:Just been announced that DCSM (government) want to put Wuss into administration. Great news in the current situation as it makes a sale more likely.

It'll take control away from the cowboys, hopefully before they can complete the asset stripping exercise.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

stub wrote:Just been announced that DCSM (government) want to put Wuss into administration. Great news in the current situation as it makes a sale more likely.

It'll take control away from the cowboys, hopefully before they can complete the asset stripping exercise.

It really seems bizarre.  The owners can't afford to continue as owners but can't seem to let go.  And their intransigence won't change the inevitable outcome - they lose the club.  Sometimes I don't understand humans.

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

stub wrote:Just been announced that DCSM (government) want to put Wuss into administration. Great news in the current situation as it makes a sale more likely.

It'll take control away from the cowboys, hopefully before they can complete the asset stripping exercise.

It really seems bizarre.  The owners can't afford to continue as owners but can't seem to let go.  And their intransigence won't change the inevitable outcome - they lose the club.  Sometimes I don't understand humans.

I presume they are staying in order to complete the asset stripping of the company. They've created 13 different connected companies to move various revenue generating assets out of the main company. That maybe just to keep the revenue generating assets out of the reach of the administrators and potentially use them to leverage funding from lending institutions. These two sound more out for themselves though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63038335

Sounds as if there's a bit of hope that Worcester still pull this around. Not sure how that fits with results, presumably it would be a similar score line given to any opposition as was used in covid?

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63038335

Sounds as if there's a bit of hope that Worcester still pull this around. Not sure how that fits with results, presumably it would be a similar score line given to any opposition as was used in covid?

We are told that there are 2 consortiums who are ready to buy now that the club is in administration. Jim O'Toole is leading one (who has been previously involved with the club) and another rumoured/hoped to include Diamond and some US backers... I think that the fear is that the current owners have woven such a difficult web of companies to section off assets from the club that it will a) put the potential buyers off, or b) take so long to sort out that Wuss will be suspended for an age or worse.

Lots of folk in Worcester have everything crossed that this can be sorted by the administrators in a speedy fashion.

Are these current owners well known businessmen or was this their first venture in to business?

Seems alot of "dodgyness"...for want of a better word.

I've often wondered how we have a system where it's acceptable for Entity A that owes people a bucket load of money to create an Entity B, move all the value to Entity B and then dissolve Entity A and walk away leaving a load of unpaid debts while retaining all the value in Entity B.

Administration isn't normally a speedy fashion. There will have to be a full audit down and the whole company valued. There's various legal bits attached to that (I know a little bit not enough for detail on that). The administrators have to then give time for all bidders to come forward before making a judgement over the best route forward for the company. That won't be done before the game at the weekend.

The owners have previous though that previous isn't necessarily what you would want your boss to have. One of them has been in trouble from his time as a lawyer where he undertook some dodgey dealings.

Heaf, it's why HMRC normally press for the administration early as it stops these shenanigans. Commercial loans are normally secured by some sort of collateral to stop the old debt dumping approach. The Sports England loan sounds like it might not be which is odd.

Interesting thoughts...
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/this-is-far-far-worse-and-far-more-serious/

Isn't that reasonably common? I'm sure the Glazers did something similar with Man U?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Isn't that reasonably common? I'm sure the Glazers did something similar with Man U?

Yes they effectively took out a loan against future revenue streams from the business with assets as collateral. Difference being Man Utd are a very profitable business enterprise and so it is able to furnish the loans comfortably and still make the investors money. Means the fans hate the owners but it's a functional model. With Wuss this just increasingly looks like a cash grab and run move.

Geordie wrote:Are these current owners well known businessmen or was this their first venture in to business?

Seems alot of "dodgyness"...for want of a better word.

Dodgy appears to perfectly sum them up Geordie!

They were owners of Morcombe Town until recently, so did have another sporting interest. However seem to have left under a cloud there. Something about not meeting the suitability test but I could be wrong.