The points awarded after the cancelled game are, it seems, not enough and Gloucester want Worcester to compensate them for the financial loss too. Fair? And what kind of precedent does it set?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/61396825
Glaws after compensation from Wuss
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Glaws after compensation from Wuss
Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
Re: Glaws after compensation from Wuss
I read that earlier today myself, it appears they claim it cost them £250K in lost ticket revenue after refunding all tickets & hospitality sold.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7554
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am
Re: Glaws after compensation from Wuss
I think it's fair, you shouldn't be conceding games at this level without a significant covid outbreak... HOWEVER it could lead to Worcester re-challenging the points award decision that said it wasn't a covid related thing. If they were to do that, then Gloucester could both lose the extra point and the money, which could get nasty
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
Re: Glaws after compensation from Wuss
Let's be honest, it was pretty cynical from Worcester wasn't it? Especially as they put out a team in the PRC a couple of days later.
That said, you'd hope Prem clubs could work together to find an amicable solution to these things, rather than to start persuing each other through the courts. Hardly a good look for the sport is it?
That said, you'd hope Prem clubs could work together to find an amicable solution to these things, rather than to start persuing each other through the courts. Hardly a good look for the sport is it?
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7554
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am
Re: Glaws after compensation from Wuss
After reading some of the judgement which can be found on the link below there's no wonder Glaws are trying to get their money back.... here's one quote (which is disputed) from the report.
Link to the full decision can be found here
https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/s ... d-decision
If true then Wuss should have the book thrown at them!!!At about 3.30pm (after the Match had been cancelled), they spoke again. What was said is not agreed. Mr St Quinton’s evidence was that Mr Whittingham told him he had been “outvoted” by Mr Goldring and Mr Diamond, who did not wish the Match to be played because Worcester had an important Premiership Cup match against Bath the following Wednesday.
Link to the full decision can be found here
https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/s ... d-decision
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1216
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:07 pm
- Location: The bagging area (unexpectedly)
Re: Glaws after compensation from Wuss
And if it isn't Gloucester (or at least Mr St Quinton) should have the book thrown at them for trying to defame Worcester...TigerFeetSteve wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 10:50 am After reading some of the judgement which can be found on the link below there's no wonder Glaws are trying to get their money back.... here's one quote (which is disputed) from the report.If true then Wuss should have the book thrown at them!!!At about 3.30pm (after the Match had been cancelled), they spoke again. What was said is not agreed. Mr St Quinton’s evidence was that Mr Whittingham told him he had been “outvoted” by Mr Goldring and Mr Diamond, who did not wish the Match to be played because Worcester had an important Premiership Cup match against Bath the following Wednesday.
Link to the full decision can be found here
https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/s ... d-decision
No, not that one!
Remember, whatever you do to the smallest of the backs you do to his prop, and you can't avoid the rucks and mauls forever...
I know you don't like it when I boo him but how else will he know he's wrong?
non possumus capere
Remember, whatever you do to the smallest of the backs you do to his prop, and you can't avoid the rucks and mauls forever...
I know you don't like it when I boo him but how else will he know he's wrong?
non possumus capere
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7554
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am
Re: Glaws after compensation from Wuss
Very true!Crofty wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 7:48 pmAnd if it isn't Gloucester (or at least Mr St Quinton) should have the book thrown at them for trying to defame Worcester...TigerFeetSteve wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 10:50 am After reading some of the judgement which can be found on the link below there's no wonder Glaws are trying to get their money back.... here's one quote (which is disputed) from the report.If true then Wuss should have the book thrown at them!!!At about 3.30pm (after the Match had been cancelled), they spoke again. What was said is not agreed. Mr St Quinton’s evidence was that Mr Whittingham told him he had been “outvoted” by Mr Goldring and Mr Diamond, who did not wish the Match to be played because Worcester had an important Premiership Cup match against Bath the following Wednesday.
Link to the full decision can be found here
https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/s ... d-decision
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 4061
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:30 pm
- Location: Lincoln
Re: Glaws after compensation from Wuss
Easily that. Averaging solidly over 10000 attendance per match. Complete sympathy with their position.
I think Worcester's insurers need to be paying out on this one, if Worcester can't pay themselves.
Before covid, when was the last time a Premiership match was cancelled because a team "couldn't field" a side?