Wasps - Ricoh Stadium - "Coventry or Die"

Difficult to know where to start, but suppose it best to pin my colours to the mast. I will not support the move to the Ricoh Stadium simply because I think it is wrong in principle to move any sports Clubs from the historical base and heartland. In the case of Wasps this move has been presented and justified as a "do or die" or "Coventry or Die" scenario and as being the only option. Well on both counts this simply is not the case.

Looking back, when did the troubles begin? The first stage was the refusal of Wycombe Council to grant the " Booker" project permission to proceed. Steve Hayes was angered by this and having invested and supported Wasps heavily over several years with this project as a long term objective all bets were now off. Steve introduced more cuts backs with the operation of Wasps and at the same time sought another buyer, he wanted out. 

Another buyer was found in the Barnet FC owner, name escapes me, however for whatever reason he dropped out just before completion, again around, February 2012. This further angered Steve Hayes and the cut backs increased to the point of Steve all but ceasing funding Wasps any longer. The process of running the Club based on revenue received had effectively begun. This led to issues with cash flow, payment of creditors and finally wage bills. The only cash potential Wasps had was via the P Shares which were viewed as the "Crown Jewels". Currently worth some 5m.

In April 2012 a meeting was held, organised by Ivor Montlake and Chaired by Mark Rigby. It was not a formal minuted company based meeting, it involved highly qualified individuals from various professions brought together under an umbrella of commonality which was Wasps. Mostly members of the Wasps FC from the past and present also some past players who were now heavily involved in business in the city of London. I was also in attendance, no others from the RFC were present.

Also attending this meeting were representatives of 2 multi national, worldwide based companies who had previously registered interest and started offer transactions with Steve Hayes before the Barnet FC was  chosen as the preferred bidder. Wasps had no money, no assets apart from P shares but did have a positive brand name. The aim to build a stadium within the region was the main attraction to these investors.

The meeting focussed on how to pay the forthcoming May 2012 wage bill. This was resolved short term, however looking longer term it was made clear by all it would take some 5 months to search and locate further investment interest from the City and indeed for those investors present to reignite their businesses to formulate another offer. I should say at this point that those potential investors that were present knew full well about the state of the Wasps financial position as they had already undergone the early stages of the due diligence process. Equally the likely costs to fund Wasps over a period of 5, 6 years to find a site and build a stadium were well know and not regarded at this stage as a negative. The Wasps brand name was still very strong and desired.

The other issue needing resolution was taking over ownership from Steve Hayes. Many options were discussed and presented to Steve, these eventually resulted in a club announcement that a Consortium headed up by Ken Moss, who was also present at the meeting, were to take over ownership of Wasps. This however was mostly smoke and mirrors to enable funds from outside the club to be provided on a loan basis in order to pay wage bills, with the "Crown Jewels" as a last resort fall back option. It was indeed seat of the pants time.

Now from this point onwards, April 2012, events become very unclear. All I do know is that further investors were being sought and I have to assume this led to the current position. The cash flow from May to September, the 5 month period, was limited but did cover immediate costs. David Thorne appeared on the scene in August 2012 as CEO/Owner (all very unclear) and then in November 2012 another significant event occurred. Nick Eastwood, who had been runner up for the England CEO role, arrived. A man of huge ability and experience taking on a role of CEO at Wasps, which was to all intent and purpose still a basket case. Why ? Had Wasps finally cracked it and had Nick been brought in to sort the club and take the stadium project forward ?

Well admittedly it is assumption, but I think we can today see the answer. During this 5 month period from May to Sept 2012 I presume Derek Richardson was also unearthed being a colleague of David Thorne and options regarding the Ricoh Stadium were presented to the Wasps board, which at that time effectively would be Ivor Montlake and Mark Rigby. The DR/DT option was chosen, the initial action being to recruit a CEO, Nick Eastwood, in order to deliver the project. 

Now the ins and outs of all this activity is unclear, however the Club also reported others investors were in tow as early as Feb 2012. They also stated that a move out of region would not be considered. To me any plan that countenanced a move out of region was not an option. Other options regarding stadiums within region would have been difficult, painstaking, long winded, costly and has to be said could potentially be unfulfilled. However I do believe other options were on the table from May 2012 but the Ricoh offered a quick fix. That does not mean the option chosen was not the best or not better. Only time will tell us the answer that question.

But for me when people justifiy this action as it was " Coventry or Die" or " It was the only option" I simply do not believe that was the case. So was Nick lying ? No, because when he took over it was the only option, it had already been decided by the Wasps board which way to proceed. That's why he was attracted and he was brought in. I watched the video of the Fans Forum and noted with interest how Nick started to distance himself from the "Coventry or Die" strap line, crediting it, if that's the correct phrase, to one of the supporters. I think he knows it was not the case.

However, the deal is now done the initial project completed. I do sincerely hope it does well. I, as I have said already, I cannot support it on principle and indeed as things progress there certain aspects I find very distasteful and to my mind not in line with rugby values which I most cherish. I feel particularly aggrieved that the RFU/PRL have sanctioned/approved this move and hope that Wasps have not taken on too much of a challenge or too much debt.

Was this the best deal for Wasps? Only time will tell. Were there other options ? Most certainly. Why was this option chosen? Again how can we assess this process with so little information. In the fans forum video, some 1hr 40mins, I think only two questions were asked about the business structure.

With regard to the financial set up of Wasps we simply do not know any or hardly any of the details. What we do know is Wasps RFC are the trading company,  have bought the leasehold, most likely pay rent to CCC on the freehold, own 50% or 100% of ACL the operating company. Wasps are 100% owned by Canmango Ltd a holding Company registered in London, largest shareholder David Thorne. Canmango Ltd are 100% owned by Moonstone Ltd who shares are 100% owned by MGI Fiduciary Services in which Derek Richardson is the primary shareholder. Both Moonstone Ltd and MGI are Malta registered companies, so quite difficult to establish details.The funding for the purchase will have come down from these Companies and will be presented as loans in the Wasps accounts.

Ricoh - The Final 50%

It has been reported today that the Alan Edward Higgs Charity (AEHC) will decide this week on the two bids they have received from Wasps RFC and CCFC (SISU) in relation to the 50% shareholding they currently hold in Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) and whether to accept or reject one or both bids. This may or may not be true, however one would assume all the necessary requirements would be in place and easily available in order to make this decision. The Wasps RFC bid is unconditional whilst the SISU bid is conditional reportedly based on information relating to the ongoing Judicial Review.

Should Wasps RFC secure the 50% they would have a 100% shareholding in ACL. If SISU are successful then they and Wasps RFC would hold 50% each. One can present a case of which would be the better outcome and often this would be based on which club you support, however from a purely business, commercial assessment a joint holding of 50% each would appear to be the stronger option in terms of increased revenue and profit in the medium to long term for ACL. This is based on the fact that should SISU fail with their conditional bid it is hard to see a future for CCFC as purely tenants, hence the crowd size and income this generates for ACL would be significantly reduced. Two factors would change this. One Wasps RFC develop an average gate size of around 15k and significantly improve the performance of ACL. Two SISU sell up CCFC to a new ownership and they can turn the club around progressing up the league and more significantly restore the average attendance to around 15 to 20k.

Now whilst all this is of some interest it is mostly irrelevant to AEHC and how they will make their decision. It will be the board of AEHC who will make the decision as to what to do with their 50% shareholding in ACL, despite the other shareholder, Wasps RFC, having the ability to block or accept any deal. Only the AEHC board can give approval to any offer. Any decision the AEHC board make will be based on commercial criteria in the best the best interests of the Children's  Charity. They have 3 options - 

1) Accept the SISU offer, which if Wasps RFC blocked  - then move to 2) or 3).

2) Reject the SISU offer and accept the Wasps RFC offer

3) Reject both offers

Whilst we do not know the details of any of the bids, the SISU offer is conditional and may well not be acceptable commercially on the basis as it could lead to further court action and incur further costs. In any event Wasps RFC could block this deal. Accepting the Wasps RFC unconditional offer would be a straight forward option, supposing both offers from SISU and Wasps RFC are roughly similar. However the AEHC must act in the best interests of the Charity, nothing else. Whilst the Coventry City Council (CCC) deal with Wasps RFC had a strong degree of political influence about it, this decision will be commercially centred. Now option 3) for the AEHC board would on the face of it present the best commercial gain, that is without knowing the full details of the bids to date.

Already with the Wasps RFC and CCC deal done the value, revenues, profits of ACL has already increased, simply by increasing the usage and profile of the Stadium. The AEHC 50% shareholding is now worth significantly more than 30 days ago. So both offers submitted should reflect this, if not they may well be rejected. The lawyers and accountants will be viewing the business plan projected figures submitted by Wasps, unless the offers submitted reflect the projected improved performance in ACL with Wasps RFC now in place, the AEHC board will be duty bound to reject both offers and stay, in the best interests of the Charity, as joint owners of ACL. They are not duty bound to sell. It will be the lawyers and accountants who prepare and present the criteria on each of the options, it will not be based on sentiment, polical pressure or preference. It will be based on the financial facts relating to the long term interests of the Charity. Simply the amount Wasps RFC paid CCC for their 50% shareholding will have increased in value, hence the bids on the table should be more, otherwise the AEHC board would not be fulfilling their duty the the Charity.

Having said all this, the most likely chain of events which has brought us to this point is that initially Wasps RFC approached the Council and most likely AEHC at the same time, showed an interest and negotiated an offer to buy both shareholdings of ACL. It was only when a covenant was discovered requiring first option sale must go to CCFC that things changed. However the initial figures scrutinised by the AEHC board have now significantly changed due to the deals not being completed simultaneously.

My preference is for Wasps RFC and CCFC (SISU) to share the spoils and get on and make it work. It is after all a sports stadium and with two clubs progressing and successful that can only be good for everyone. We shall see how it all unfolds, hopefully this week.

Coventry - right or wrong ?

KNo matter what anyone thinks Wasps are moving to the Ricoh Stadium lock, stock and barrel. This move will be completed in about 18 months when training facilities are ready. Then Wasps will be a Coventry based Rugby Club. 

Now Wasps have moved several times during the professional era but never had their own stadium. Here I should show my colours. Moving within region, and by region I mean designated Academy region, I have no issue, however moving outside of region i fundamentally disagree with. There is no regulation with Community development programmes and here lies the problem. Currently any team can up sticks and move. Their is no governance and we therefore must draw the conclusion the PRL/RFU by their desire with lack of control support this action.

We must also accept that employees will publically at least support any move. We will not find out until much later what they really feel when they have to move their families, change schools, stay farewell to friends etc when the training ground shifts. This scenario will come much quicker, immediately, for community development employees and some office staff. Rugby players have short careers and they are mostly concerned with being involved in a successful, supportive environment and of course one that can pay the wages.

The club management have described the clubs position as a "live or die" situation. Suggesting that between these two extreme positions there are no other options. Well the "die" scenario is certainly not true. The Wasps name will live on whatever albeit for some supporters, which I fully understand, have only known and are interested in the professional arm of the club. So although "die" is an inaccurate description it also fails to offer the many options between the two extremes. The movement down the leagues (which would occur) could be done in a controlled manner, eventually finding a level where the business is sustainable - fully, semi, part professional or completely amatuer. Maybe not very palatable for many, but it is an option many others have taken. Another possible option sit with the RFU which could step in a take over control of a club which they most likely regret not doing back in 1995 where they were advocating setting up 4 professional regions. This position supported by the likes of Lawrence Dallaglio at the time. Things have now moved on, however, I think if England could take control of 4 regionally based clubs now they would, let's say, consider it. The fact of the matter is the rugby business model after 18 years of development does not make money, the support at the turnstiles is not there. Only some models cover costs.

The model Wasps have followed has been the least productive model on the balance sheet. However it is not dissimilar to the successful ones, only the balance sheet, accounts present it in a different way. We must be hugely appreciative and grateful to the owners contributions over the years. Each have been trying to establish a structure by which the club can stand on its own two feet. Effectively they have been transferring funds from their existing business activities via their own personal wealth into Wasps accounts by way of loans and guarantees. The successful model simply creates a business directly connected with the club. Most often this is via ownership of a stadium and now in our case via ownership of the management of a stadium. The successful models presented by PRL would be Leicester, Gloucester, Exeter, Northampton and Harlequins. These make small profits based on their large support bases and stadium corporate business returns. Not sure about Saracens and Newcastle but both own stadiums but support bases are smaller and result in losses, I think. 

Wasps move to The Ricoh Stadium is different from all these models, more similar to Saracens but unlike that of Leicester, Gloucester etc. It looks like, smells like, works like, branded as and is primarily a football stadium, the home of Coventry City FC. It is not a Rugby Stadium in the fashion of Northampton, Quins etc. We will receive income from the running of this Stadium, as yet the figures are unclear as there is still 50% of the ownership to be resolved. However Wasps could have simply taken control of the running of the Stadium been supported by the revenues of the Stadium and remained at Adams Park or decided to play "big games" only at the Ricoh, Twickenham being too big with about 45,000 required to break even. They could have bought or been bought by a business anywhere in the country, the world and remained at Adams Park, similar to Saracens. The gamble for Wasps is by moving the playing venue this will significantly improve the current Stadium business model, improve revenues generated by the stadium and generate a much larger support base. It needs to at least double the current support base. This is very unlikely with some of the most heavily supported clubs in the close vicinity. However it is extremely likely the move will improve existing returns from the Studium use. But for this to make Wasps profitable we need to know what percentage will go to Wasps? It seems to me and I would suggest also the Club management, as they have already indicated, CCFC will get a better deal than we get at Adams Park and want to help them progress towards the Premiership !!!!  Further to that CCFC could also end up as joint owners with a 50% stake. Whatever happens the important issue will be to increase the Football revenues and increase Football attendances. We are moving into Football Stadium first, none of the other Rugby business models have this.

If we remained at Adams Park we would have to continue paying rent and only get 15p from every £ spent. What the profit margin is on that £ spent is unclear - 40p ? -  said like this 15p doesn't sound so bad. What will be the return on every £ spent at the Ricoh - well I would estimate 20p with a 50% stake. I don't know, would be good to know. Of course we would stay in our region, maintain all the partnerships and our support. It would mean we would not generate so much profit but it would provide time to continue to look for another venue. A better venue, a bigger venue than Adams Park. Saracens are supported by a business from afar and have done just this. Derek Richardson has driven this process and shown fantastic support for the club. However it is our CEO ( throw the eggs at me) and Board who make these decisions. Has this scenario even been considered ? Why have we decided to leave our historic homeland, buy and move into a Stadium that is quite clearly the home of the football club from that city. Other options did/do exist, it is simply not a case of "live or die". Only comes close if Derek Richardson has presented the Club with a "do this or I am off" position and hence has ruled any other options out. We would then go into administration and need to deal with the options as they present themselves. Nobody really knows what this would be. It would of course be painful.  Equally it could present opportunities that before have not been considered. We simply do not know. Mark Rigby stated 3 years ago that moving the club outside of its heartland region was "God forbid" not a option to be considered. Earliest links are reported in newspapers go back to August 2012. So this is not a sudden development.

Moving outside our region to me is not an option to be considered for Wasps or any rugby club. Every supporter will make their own mind up about how they feel. Not a problem.

For me rugby, sport is about working together and dealing with problems as they arise, working hard to develop. The success on the field is the goal, achieved collectively. Individually all then benefit. The greatest fulfilment for players, coaches and supporters is felt by achieving success in the face of adversity, as we most likely saw on Sunday v Bath. It is not about, should not be about which clubs have the most money and can attract the best players and hence win everything. This success for me is hollow. Rugby needs to maintain as far as possible a level playing field and this is very much the role of the PRL and RFU. PRL officials commented several years back about how I would feel about Wasps being the first franchised club. The PRL and RFU have been very quiet since the announcement was made. Clearly they want all clubs to be sustainable in order to grow their product and provide security for employees. However they also need to protect the integrity of the game, it is that that makes the game for most/many. Simply for me this is a step too far, goes against the basic principles of sport and indeed rugby.

England World Cup Chances - The Biggest Threat.

As the Autumn Internationals approach Englands final push, preparations for the World Cup are under serious threat from the ever increasing list of injured players. England have great strength in depth, however not in all positions and equally as yet the side is not settled. With a large number of these England contenders out with injury the chance to play a settled team during the AI's and the 6 Nations is becoming less likely.

So why are we seeing this increase ? I believe it is a very complex picture. Certainly the increasing physicality of the game is taking its toil, but I would argue a bigger influence is the refereeing of the game which is becoming of great concern. To date with the Premiership season I would estimate a strong arguements could be made that every week 2 or 3 players could easily have been red carded for foul, dangerous or reckless play and that's only from the games I have seen. Are the referees becoming weak ? I think this is too simplistic an answer.

I would highlight a very subtle, not orchestrated, undermining of the authority of the referee which has led to referees turning to the yellow card as opposed to red. Main culprits for me are the whinging and moaning Directors of Rugby and TV pundits/commentators. Referees decisions are being constantly challenged despite one of the fundamental principles of such a physical game as rugby is the referee is the sole judge of fact. Without acceptance of this simple statement the game would fall apart. It cannot be challenged if we and future generations of players/people want to gain the benefits of this special and great game.

There seems to be an attitude amongst DOR's and TV pundits that challenging the referee publically is fair game. It is not. The game at the top is Professional and hence under pressure to entertain. A sending off can end the contest and be contrary to the business principles required by the clubs. However the Professional Clubs do not own the game. To a degree a can understand DOR's reactions to decisions as livlelihoods are constantly under threat, however that does excuse this behaviour. There can be no excuse for TV pundits. Basically often their comments are simply totally irresponsible.

Equally there seems to be a misguided attitude that sending off a player for illegal and dangerous play is in some way making the game soft - "In my day the we took it and got on with it and had a beer afterwards" " handbags" "don't be a big girl" etc etc. Well the game is going soft but not in that way. The increasing tendency NOT to send off players, tolerating dangerous and reckless play, this is soft. Whining, moaning and continually challenging the referees authority is weak, pathetic, soft and most importantly damaging the game at grass roots level and now also at England International level.

It is time to take a stance against those attacking the fundamental core values of the game and stop defending foul, dangerous play. The time has come to encourage and support the referees to take tough action. If England suffer in the coming months leading into the World Cup due to an excessive injury toll a great deal of the responsibility will sit squarely with DOR's and TV pundits due to their unrelenting assault on the referees over several years. Referees have and will always make mistakes. Do what generations have always done before, accept it as a peculiar and centrally important part of the game - live with it. 

Rugbys core values provide an effective preparation for the challenges life present. Learning to deal with events and outcomes as they happen and developing coping strategies makes a person stronger, better. Rugby is just a game, but it is a special game which provides an exceptional basis to ALL that play to lead their lives in a positive and productive manner. I repeat the Professional Clubs do not own the game, it is game owned by all.

Wasps v Quins Away 20th Sept - Verdict

Can't really make any comments as yet I have not seen the game, only a few highlights. However from reports made to date for the over riding season target of improving consistency and accuracy we seemingly have made little progress.

We are scoring tries which is a good sign but very much as per previous seasons - that is apart from driving lineouts very little is coming from concerted pressure or organised attack. Mostly interceptions, Individual snipes, turnovers or kick chases. Now these should not be dismissed, however I guess what I'm trying to say is it would be encouraging to see some signs of affective coaching, tactical nous and development as opposed to simply a team that has appears to have trained well.

Still 6pts on the board is a good return from the fixtures to date. Although the teams played so far finished in the top four last season as yet it's not clear if these teams are performing at the same levels as last season - that would be with the exception of N'pton.

My call for the Quins game was a 17 to 26 win for Wasps. Going into the game the interest for me was to see if we could adopt the right mind set as it was pretty clear Quins would react from the heavy defeat the previous week that after our N'pton result expectation with players, coaches and supporters alike had been raised. From all accounts Quins did come out all guns blazing and with a little more composure we could well have secured the victory albeit not that pretty. This was never going to be pretty.

Mind set is everything and so again this week v Falcons we will need to be at our best. They have played 2 of the top 4 from last season and although only returned one losing bonus point have scored 6 tries and conceded 10 - not as good as our return on both counts however not much in it. Equally they had a 14pts turn around which went against them v Leicester via an intercept try on the Leicester line which could have presented a whole different picture. A further 4pts on our League tally would be very welcome and should go some way to improving our composure and confidence. 

We are very much on target for that top six finish and although performance seems to be erratic at this stage most teams bar Bath and N'pton seem to be playing with a lack of consistency.

Wasps v N'pton at Home 14th Sept 2014 - Verdict

Well, what a fantastic result. Confidence restored big time. 5pts on the board. In my pre season review the need I identified was for 12pts from the first six games....we are well on target. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves, consistency has been the issue with us, highlighted by supporters, coaches, players, pundits etc so we need to back it up over the next few weeks. However lets enjoy the moment, we have just beaten the reigning Champions with a controlled, patient, composed, quality performance - YES.

So why the improvement ? Going into the game most had N'pton as favourites. I did anyway, looking at a 19 - 31 predicted score line. N'pton will have to carry this tag for the whole season as reigning Champions but that's their problem. Mind set wise we will have known anything short of our best could have led to a defeat and possibly a heavy defeat - this tends to focus the mind. Technically we were a different beast defensively and although we had few chances, in attack too. We showed composure and purpose - individually we have never had a problem, it is collectively we very seldom perform as one with clear focus.

For the majority of the game we had our backs to the wall. We never relented in purpose and organisation until just about their final attack. We did not over commit at the rucks before this last attack and made accurate decisions to attack the ball or drop back in line and keep our shape. We were only broken by the same movement as against Sarries where we over committed to a simple post or circle ball off 10. That is 9 running round 10, although in this instance 10 was tackled but still managed to off load.

In attack I can only think the presence of Leiua within the squad is focusing the mind of the whole back line, particularly the centres. Bell stuck to doing what he does well in attack and defence and Daly stayed straight and showed he can distribute accurately and effectively off his right hand. Dai Young has a big decisions to make, lucky him. Every player now must perform to the highest level or risk losing their place. This, hopefully will bring the consistency we are after. For future games the mind set will be a more difficult challenge as we will not be underdogs and more importantly we will need to take the initiative in attack. That is we can't start thinking we have beaten the Champions so all we need to do is turn up.

For this game, Goode showed his experience and kept the team moving forward with excellent game management and some good distribution. However it was not until Jackson entered the fray that we really threatened in attack, playing much higher and keeping the back line straight, creating space out wide. It is attacking the space between the attack and defensive lines that is the difference between top quality 10's and most other 10's with ball in hand. Much higher risk but the only way to threaten the defence effectively. The best 10's play flat and can distribute in the face of the defence. We now have options and again huge choices for Dai Young to make. Questions are if Jackson would have started would we have controlled the game as well and kept N'pton at bay.....I doubt it. However against other teams where we need to take the initiative Jackson or Lozowski could be better starting options particularly if the back line maintains the effective running lines. We simply must use all the resource we have across the field, but at the right time to suit the suitation.

Nathan Hughes gave us the good go forward last week but was mostly stifled this week. Haskell and Bell provided most of the go forward this week but mostly it was Goode who turned the N'pton defence with intelligent kicking supported by good chasers. Ashley Johnson was Ashley Johnson, simply a pain in the neck around the breakdown and in loose play. The front five provide superb cover and compensated for the lack of some of the requirements produced by our back row. Mostly our back row are ball carries first, tacklers and jacklers second and support players last if at all. However, the front five, Launchbury and Gaskell particularly, provide great support, high work rate and high tackle counts. Equally we have replacements available in Lindsay, Cooper Wooley, Myall, Cannon, Davies and Swainston who offer dynamic, high work rate options. Launchbury and Gaskell could quite easily and have played in the back row.

This performance whether resulting in a win or loss was very encouraging. N'pton choose to not take kickable pens and will be rueing those decisions today. They may have been believing their own press after their performance last week. However we must not fall into the same trap. We must play our game appropriate for the situation, all games will provide different challenges but we clearly have the fire power to beat any team if we play with this composure and accuracy. The rustiness of last week had disappeared and we looked sharper in mind and deed. We should also remember the Ashley Johnson intercept was a try the other end if missed. For me what was a delight was the Tom Varndell try. On the front foot, ball taken flat by Jackson, line straighten by Daly with accurate right to left passing putting TV in space. We know TV and Wadey can finish but a great decision and execution of the chip, gathered and scored. We should also highlight two excellent difficult conversions, with pressure, from Jackson.

Next up is Quins. We need to forget they are in turmoil and focus on the requirements. Narrow pitch makes space out wide a premium. So keep our defensive shape and play territory. Take the points when offered. Use the pack, midfield, counter attack and grubber kicks to provide the tries. Quins will come out all guns blazing and we need more of the N'pton composure and to turn the screw in the attacking zone. Keep lifting the aggression in defence line speed in attack and defence. COYW - back to back wins please.

Wasps v Saracens at HQ - 6th Sept - Verdict

First games are always a bit of a lottery and not a true indication of what may develop further into the season. My feelings were I guess much the same of many of the Wasps supporters, great expectation due to the strong finish to the previous season gaining ECC top level inclusion.

Realistically playing Saracens I was not expecting a win, however as the week progressed and understanding Saracens were several key players short, Britz, Joubert, Bosch, Burger, Mako Vunipola, De Kock and possibly Farrell and Hamilton, a win was not out of the question. Indeed with Borthwick also having retired the Saracens players, many who have played 1st XV during the previous season would have to front up without the leaders on the field, this a significantly different task. Wasps fundamentally were only one significant player missing, Leiua, even though he is totally unproven I, like many others, believe he will make a huge impact, we will see. Most/many of our other new recruits are high level players but not significantly better - simply provide good depth. Hence my Prediction League assessment changed several times, I finally settled for a 29 - 26 win to Sarries, based mostly on our rollercoster form last season.

Having now seen the game it was really one that got away. Saracens were a shadow of the team they were last season and very much for the taking. We need to improve significantly from this performance if we are to challenge for a top six place. Defensively we were a shambles throughout the game. During phase play we conceded the gain line too easily, too often drawn in by the dummy runner, had little or no composure during scrabbled defence situations and were too easily undone by simple post or circle balls. Equally we took a belt and braces approach to defend the short side off scrums supposedly due to the threat of Billy Vunipola, this approach left us exposed on the openside and led directly to the second Strettle try.

In attack Nathan Hughes gave us some excellent momentum crossing the gain line regularly. Haskell was more hit and miss but generally carried well. Most of the pack carried well, Launchbury was simply outstanding with work rate and support play and Gaskell showed at last we have a player that can pass a ball effectively. Mullen and Festuccia worked hard and effectively in the loose as well as contributing to a good set piece work from the pack. Like most of the previous 3 seasons our attacking play relies on individual brilliance as opposed to any structured approach. Joe Simspon carved a big hole, Launchbury unbelievably was first up to maintain the attack, Goode hit a fantastic cross field kick, Wade finished brilliantly and Ashley Johnson showed his versatility to create a score. Pretty sure this will continue to happen throughout the season, but we must do more, we must work purposefully and collectively.

Our back row is terribly unbalanced and provides little support in attack, little cover or defence in the wide channels. Our distribution around 10 and 12 is slow, predictable, inaccurate and often we are taking too much space from the players out wide with our distribution and running lines. Generally off slow ruck ball our runners are taking the ball standing still and provide no threat and mostly fail to get across the gain line. Also of concern is our perceived fitness levels. We did not look sharp. This could be early season cobwebs. However it needs to be better.

Next up is Northampton who were simply outstanding against Gloucester. Should imagine (hope) they cannot perform to that level again back to back. Hopefully the Saracens game was just a case of nervousness, over excitement and we will see a more structured and controlled performance to go with the undoubted individual brilliance within the squad.