THE Rugby Football Union have released a document answering questions regarding the situation at Worcester Warriors.
A document of FAQs was sent to former players of the rugby club by the RFU and has now been posted on social media.
In an update from their end, they said: "Worcester Warriors (men's team) are now exiting the league structure and will not be participating in the league. A new club could restart at the bottom of the pyramid in season 2023/24 but this would be right at the bottom."
READ MORE | Atlase see no reason why they would have to drop to the bottom of the rugby pyramid
EXCLUSIVE: @RFU have released a letter to @WorcsWarriors former players in which it warns that clubs can’t just “buy” a league position.
— BBC Hereford & Worcester (@bbchw) April 12, 2023
More on the #WorcesterWarriorsPodcast today 📻📱@BBCSounds pic.twitter.com/cXTP7MCbfr
The current proposal of soon-to-be owners Atlas is to bring local first-team squad Stourbridge Rugby to Sixways, under the name of Worcester Warriors.
READ MORE: Former Worcester and England winger to retire from rugby
On that proposal, the RFU added: "There have been various press reports about different possibilities, such as a merger or taking over the first XV of Stourbridge RFC. All of this would need RFU approval and we would need to consult with other relevant stakeholders (e.g. other local clubs).
"At the moment, we have not received any proposals. We do not want to pre-empt any process, but the regulations are designed to prevent a club from effectively "buying" a league position."
Atlas - directed by Jim O'Toole and James Sandford - have been in the process of completing their takeover of the club since February after being announced as the preferred bidders by administrators Begbies Traynor. It is still yet to be completed.
READ MORE| Worcester City boss insists he is still the man for the job
The RFU confirmed that the decision was not within their control: "The decision who the club was sold to was purely a matter for the administrators, and the administrators were clear that the RFU (and DCMD) had no sale in the process.
"The administrators were clear that their legal duty was to maiximise the sale price and so would not prioritise a sale to a group who would guarantee professional rugby. We believe that there were three bidders in total, and it was purely the administrators who made the choice.
"The administrators only informed the RFU of the sale once contracts had been signed."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here