CHAPTER 8

SEPTEMBER 2022:
THE FALL — AND THE FIGHT TO SAVE
WORCESTER WARRIORS

The club had run out of time. But the battle for its future, its assets and its place in Worcester was only beginning.

The final deadline

By September 2022, the crisis at Worcester Warriors could no longer be contained by assurances, negotiations or promises that money was on its way. Players had experienced late wages. Staff were still waiting for money owed to them. Suppliers were concerned about unpaid bills, HMRC had pursued a winding-up petition, and the club’s owners, Colin Goldring and Jason Whittingham, were struggling to secure the funding needed to keep the business operating.

The warning signs had been visible for months, but now the consequences were becoming immediate. This was no longer simply a question of whether Worcester could compete on a rugby pitch. It was whether the club could pay its bills, satisfy its regulators and demonstrate that it had a viable future.

The summer had also produced an increasingly complicated picture of short-term finance and potential buyers. A £600,000 loan, carrying interest at 20% for three months, had been secured against the stadium car park, according to The Guardian. The arrangement helped raise money for the August payroll, but it also placed a charge over an important part of the Sixways property. The newspaper subsequently reported that an alternative offer of £780,000, interest-free and conditional on a suitable buyer being found who would keep rugby at Sixways, had been made. The owners retained the original arrangement. [1]

That transaction matters because it raises questions extending beyond the immediate payment of wages. Who lent the money? Which legal entity borrowed it? What exactly was charged as security? Was the loan repaid, and what happened to the charge when control of the stadium and its surrounding property changed? These are questions that must be answered from the loan documents, registered charges, completion records and administrators’ accounts, not from assumption.

There was another loan relationship to examine: the £500,000 associated in the earlier history of the club with the Duckworth Worcestershire Trust. We must establish the original lender, the borrower, the terms and the eventual treatment of that debt. It would be wrong to describe it as a personal loan from Beatrice Duckworth without confirming that she, rather than the Trust, was legally the lender. The distinction matters, particularly when we come to identify creditors and establish who was owed money by which company.

The search for a way out

Even as the financial position deteriorated, attempts were being made to find a buyer.

One of the earliest publicly identified rescue proposals came from Jim O’Toole, Worcester’s former chief executive. In August, O’Toole announced that he had approached the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport with a proposal concerning the club’s funding and future. He was working with James Sandford, associated with Atlas SportsTech, on behalf of an American investor whose identity was not publicly disclosed at the time. The proposal included multi-year operational funding and a commitment to address the government loan.

There was, however, an important condition. O’Toole said the plan depended on the relevant entities being placed into administration. His proposal was therefore not simply an offer to purchase a healthy operating business; it was a rescue plan designed around the legal and financial circumstances of an insolvent club. [2]

That distinction would shape everything that followed. A prospective buyer might be interested in the rugby operation, the brand, the stadium, the land, or some combination of those assets. But interest in the club did not automatically mean that the buyer could acquire every part of the Sixways operation in one transaction.

Nor was O’Toole the only person interested. The owners had publicly referred to negotiations and prospective purchasers, and in September announced that terms had been agreed with an unnamed buyer. The proposed sale was not completed before the club entered administration. The identity of that prospective purchaser, the precise terms of the agreement and the reasons it failed to proceed must be established from the available documentary record. We cannot assume that every reported expression of interest became a formal offer, or that every agreement in principle was capable of completion.

The search for a buyer would continue after the administrators arrived. In October, Steve Diamond, Worcester’s former director of rugby, emerged at the head of a rival consortium, with former Leicester chief executive Simon Cohen and financial backing from two investors. One was subsequently identified in reporting as local businessman Adam Hewitt, whose company had been the club’s main sponsor. The other was described as a property developer specialising in waste management. Diamond spoke publicly of building a sustainable business capable of competing in the Premiership again. [3]

These approaches deserve a proper account in their own right. Who made contact, who submitted an offer, what was included, how much funding was available and what conditions were attached? We will follow those questions in the next chapters, recording the evidence for each bidder and distinguishing proposals that progressed from those that did not.

The final days at Sixways

The club’s position became critical during the second half of September. Worcester’s opening home match against Exeter Chiefs on 18 September went ahead, but with attendance restricted to 4,999. The Warriors lost 36–21. On 24 September, they beat Newcastle Falcons 39–5 in what would prove to be their final match before suspension.

Behind the scenes, the Rugby Football Union required evidence of insurance cover, money available to meet monthly payroll and a credible plan for the club’s future. Worcester failed to satisfy the deadline. On 26 September, the RFU suspended the club from competition. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport then agreed to the directors’ request that WRFC Trading Limited be placed into administration, with the stated aim of protecting the government’s investment and giving the business the best possible chance of survival. [4]

It is important to understand what this did — and did not — mean. Administration was not the same as liquidation. It did not automatically dissolve every company associated with Worcester Warriors, nor did it mean that every property interest previously connected with the club became the property of the administrators.

The legal position was more complicated. WRFC Trading Limited was the principal operating company placed into administration. WRFC Players Limited, which employed the players and staff, was a separate company. Sixways Stadium and the surrounding land were also subject to a distinct structure of ownership, leases and security arrangements.

On 27 September, Julie Palmer, Andrew Hook and Julian Pitts of Begbies Traynor were appointed joint administrators of WRFC Trading. They were also appointed joint receivers of Sixways Stadium. On 5 October, they became receivers over certain assets of Worcester Sport Limited, including the entire issued share capital of MQ Property Co Limited, and replaced MQ Property’s incumbent directors with an independent director. The administrators explained that these steps were intended to improve their ability to sell the key assets and increase the prospect of a sale as a going concern. [5]

The appointments were significant. They show that the work of rescuing the club involved more than finding someone willing to take over the rugby team. It also required dealing with the legal interests surrounding the stadium and property companies. But the appointments alone do not establish that the administrators changed every underlying ownership right, or that they acquired the freehold of every parcel of land. Those questions require the property titles, leases, charges and subsequent transfer documents to be examined individually.

The players and staff pay the price

The collapse also exposed the vulnerability of the people whose livelihoods depended on the club. WRFC Players Limited was wound up by a High Court order on 5 October 2022. The Official Receiver became its liquidator, responsible for winding down the company, realising any available assets, distributing funds to creditors and investigating the circumstances of its insolvency. The order meant that the company employing the players and staff was no longer continuing as an ordinary trading business. [6]

The distinction between the two companies is important. WRFC Trading’s administration and WRFC Players’ liquidation were separate legal processes, involving different appointments and responsibilities. The position of each company’s creditors, the treatment of outstanding wages and the eventual outcome of each insolvency must therefore be traced separately.

The same discipline applies to other companies in the wider Worcester structure. A company could own property, owe money, hold shares in another company or have ceased trading without having been dissolved. Its status cannot be established merely by saying that the rugby club went into administration.

The questions left behind

The first reports of the administration revealed a substantial body of debt, but they did not settle every question about the club’s finances. Later reporting of the administrators’ findings disclosed that the former owners, Goldring and Whittingham, claimed to be owed more than £2 million by companies associated with Worcester Warriors. The administrators also reported that they were investigating whether the club was owed more than £600,000 by an associated party. [7]

Those statements must be read carefully. A claim that someone is owed money is not proof that the claim is valid, that it has been accepted by an office-holder, or that it has been paid. Equally, a company owing money to a former owner does not mean that the owner still owns the club or its property. We need to identify the debtor, creditor, legal basis of the claim, any security, and its eventual treatment in the insolvency process.

The questions extend beyond the former owners. What happened to the car-park loan? What became of the Duckworth-related loan? Who held the security over the land and the stadium? What was the position of the government loan? Which assets could be sold, and which were subject to separate ownership or charges? And what happened to the proposals from O’Toole, Diamond and the other parties who wanted to rescue the club?

These are not peripheral details. They are central to understanding why the rescue process took months, why the rugby operation and Sixways property did not pass together in a single straightforward sale, and why later changes in ownership would become so contentious.

The beginning of the inquest

Worcester Warriors had reached the end of its Premiership season in circumstances that few supporters could have imagined. The club had been suspended, its principal operating company was in administration, its players’ employer was facing liquidation, and its future depended on decisions made by administrators, receivers, creditors, prospective buyers and the governing bodies of English rugby.

Yet the story was not over. There were still people prepared to put forward rescue proposals, still assets to be dealt with, still creditors seeking repayment and still a community determined to see professional rugby return to Sixways.

The administration opened the door to a sale, but it did not instantly answer the question of who owned what. Nor did it settle the question of who was owed money, how much could be recovered, or whether the club could return to the professional game on a sustainable footing.

Those answers lie in the records of the companies, the insolvency proceedings, the property transactions and the competing bids that followed.

The next chapter begins inside the administration — with the creditors, the claims and the money that had to be accounted for.

Sources and evidence

1. The Guardian, 5 October 2022, “The inside story of a rugby club’s demise” — the £600,000 loan, car-park security and alternative offer. Read the article.

2. BBC Sport, 28 August 2022, “Former chief executive Jim O’Toole says he has submitted proposal to save club.” Read the report.

3. BBC Sport, 27 October 2022, “Steve Diamond takes charge of Sixways takeover bid.” Read the report.

4. BBC Sport, 26 September 2022, “Worcester Warriors suspended by RFU and put into administration.” Read the report.

5. Begbies Traynor, WRFC Trading Limited — Joint Administrators’ Statement of Proposals; also reported by BBC Sport in its coverage of the administration and subsequent sale.

6. UK Government, 5 October 2022, “WRFC Players Limited: information for creditors and interested parties.” Read the notice.

7. BBC Sport, 17 November 2022, “Relegated Premiership club’s debts amount to more than £30m.” Read the report.

Editorial note

This chapter distinguishes contemporaneous announcements, published reporting and later insolvency information. The complete legal and financial treatment of the loans, creditor claims, property interests and competing offers remains subject to examination of the underlying documents. No allegation of wrongdoing is made where the available evidence does not establish it.