Jump to content

Adeybull

Coach
  • Content Count

    1,864
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Adeybull last won the day on June 12 2018

Adeybull had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,248 Excellent

Member Profile

  • Location
    At the Gates of Delirium

Recent Profile Visitors

3,947 profile views
  1. Around a year ago, IIRC, when the other code announced the proposed PE investment, a number of people on here - including me - speculated about whether similar thoughts might be in the minds of the SL club chairmen? And, if so, what the practicalities and the consequences might be. I was not the only one to express concerns that such a move COULD be a means of various SL club owners getting their loans repaid, or otherwise realising the value of their "investments" in their respective clubs, should they so wish. Rather than, necessarily investing (all the ) the windfall in their clubs or the wider game. There was also debate about, e.g. whether this would enable (or require) the SL clubs who happened to be sat down on the chairs when the music stopped to pull up the drawbridge. Various other potential implications were discussed. However, the debate did not last long, because John Drake determined that the subject was not about Rugby league but about another sport. And he kept either moving the threads to the Other Sports forum, or locking them (or both - can't remember which, now). Even though I and others argued that what the other lot were up to could well have significant implications for our own code, and could perhaps provide some possible reasons behind the coup that had recently taken place. I think a common thread, nevertheless, was that the game - and its leading clubs - had to do SOMETHING, as the status quo ante was clearly untenable in the longer term. Whether PE investment, as the other code was considering, would be the appropriate (or indeed only...) route or not was a matter that seemed relevant for discussion? Maybe such threads might be deemed relevant now? And maybe those of us who speculated might feel that we had good reason to do so at the time? But, for whatever reason (and JD provided his reason) no continuing discussion was entertained on this main forum thread. (OK, after that, and given I was also hacked off with the continual unpleasant attacks on Bulls supporters from too many posters on here - why keep attacking US for the series of bandits whom Wood & co appointed to re-wreck the club? - I packed in posting on here. Other than one post, a few months ago, saying QED after a few especially nasty shots at Bulls supporters, I have just looked in to read, from time to time. As I will return to so doing, so worry not.) But, as a parting comment, I'll say what I tried to say a while ago. Private Equity is a huge misnomer, since it is usually an outfit borrowing loads of money to buy another, with only a small capital investment of their own money. They then have to squeeze cash flow out of the acquired business to service and repay the loans, and probably pay big dividends on the capital, and then they look to sell on the business at a significant profit. Sometimes this transforms the acquired business into a leaner and saleable proposition. Sometimes spectacularly so. And sometimes it provides the means of removing the muppetry whose poor management of the business led to the need for PE investment in the first place. Sometimes instead, though it sucks the cash and the life out of the acquired business, the quality of whose product and/or the performance of whose business then reduces, and reduces more, until it falls over. Sometimes spectacularly so. The loans are invariably secured, so THEY get paid off. Those who have invested capital probably lose it - but they may have recovered a lot already through dividends or loan interest. As for what (if anything) is left...well I could list loads of examples... When selling out to PE, you have a tiger by the tail. It CAN be the making of a dynamic business. Or in can be the ruination of a business. You have to be very sure of what you are about, if you remain involved. And be very clear-minded and careful of what you wish for, if looking in and hoping for big benefits.
  2. Don't worry. I stopped posting on this forum some time ago. John Drake knows why. But I have still visited to read, from time to time. But reading this thread has merely confirmed my view. Sod it. Nothing but unpleasantness. It has long ago ceased to be a nice place to come to.
  3. I tried to discuss precisely this issue earlier in the week, when the story broke about what the other code was doing. On two threads. JD was not happy. Chalmers has now said pretty well exactly what I said. And warned pretty well exactly what I warned. And refers to the same "12 + 1" effective closed shop that I have been warning about. Check out the locked thread on the cross-code forum - and anyway, much of what Chalmers warns would be regardless of any potential and hypothetical sale of the SL competition to private equity, a sale that would bring a windfall for the SL club owners. So, is it now OK to discuss this subect on here?
  4. Deleted, given John's admonishment. I don't agree - I thought it was relevant - but he is the boss.
  5. His severe dislike of Chalmers was clear. But he made it pretty clear that his views (and he implied those of the unnamed others) would not alter whilst the club was under its current ownership. And that, should the current iteration of Bradford (which one can only HOPE will be more stable and last a lot longer than the previous ones) ever be a candidate for SL, there would be the resistance I indicated. My point, which I made at the time, was not that he and seemingly other owners took exception to things that had happened in the past. Nor that they had concerns about the establishment and financing and ownership of the current iteration. He is perfectly entitled to raise questions, as indeed have Bulls fans (including me). The clear implication was the RFL (which would be Wood) was complicit - but was there anything else that pretty well everyone already (including Bulls fans) thinks, that he wanted to tell us? The extensive serial interventions of the RFL are in any case a matter of record, and Bulls supporters told Rimmer what they thought about that to his face last Autumn . My point was that the SL club owners, according to Hudgell, clearly believed it was in their power to overide any promotion that might be won on the field, because they objected to things that may or may not have happened some time ago off the field. And that, by implication, they not the structure, had the power to decide who could and could not be admitted to SL. And that, by extension, such powers could be used whenever else they deemed a club, that had earned promotion on the field, not be one they wanted in SL.
  6. Yes. He said Bradford would face resistance from himself and other (un-named) SL club owners should they ever be in a position to be eligible for SL. His justification seemed to be because of how he believed Bradford had been treated in the past, and especially because of what happened that gave rise to the current ownership, together with insinuations about how the present iteration of the club was/is funded. The reference to Hudgell was specific to his comments about Bradford.
  7. No it does not. Nowhere have I argued that the non-SL clubs should receive a cut of the TV money for the SL TV rights, unless they can provide something back in return. Which at present, in a number of ways, they (or some of them) do. What I HAVE argued includes: 1 - The non-SL clubs should be able to try and secure their own TV rights deal/s. At present they cannot. Whether there is indeed "no value" in those rights, as you asserted, could then be tested. My own view is that broadcasters will see a mortally-divided game, and take full advantage to the detriment of everyone. And the non-SL clubs would need to somehow secure the services of (and be able to pay for) the likes of an Elstone and a strategy to try and make the competition much more marketable. A prospect for which I am not holding my breath. 2 - There has to be an objective and achievable method of clubs gaining promotion to SL, rather than being admitted only if they met whatever criteria SL specificed. 3 - There has to be a means of preventing a club relegated from SL from being so much better financed than the rest of the clubs in the Championship that it is likely to bounce straight back. 4 - The words of John Donne, in "no man is an island", are highly pertinent to the current situation. Diminish part of the game, and you diminish it all.
  8. Why would it take a SL intermediary to sell games not selected by Sky? Why would Sky be prepared to allow a competitive broadcaster in, when they currently do not? Why would Sky elect to show non-SL games now, when they have not done so hitherto? What makes you think Sky will offer the same deal next time round? (I expect it to be less). Do you think 100k extra subs at £15/month (£12/month income, as - like pretty well everyone else, you seem to forget VAT) is realistic?
  9. Who said they did? But Salford will want to protect Salford. And, for such time that each SL club has one vote on the board of SLE, the weaker clubs will be able to attempt to veto anything to their detriment. Various proponents of the Junta's proposals have said that the current deal was only passed by a small majority of SL clubs in 2014. And even then, after dangling carrots of various natures. The delicious - if tragic - irony of it all would - WILL - be when they have to resort to precisely the same to force through future proposals to replace the likes of Salford with clubs more to their liking.
  10. Er...I am sure they would like to aim for considerably more than that. But, when faced with a dominant and monied SL, then in the context of the current restructuring intentions a win would be anything that avoided facing them with an existential crisis. It is probably the best they can hope for in a situation where the game is likely to split - to the detriment of all, but to that of the weakest (and that includes clubs that may in due course get ejected from SL, once the Junta have their votes) most of all. A REAL win would be someone taking hold of ALL the game, removing ANY vested interests from a position of control, and coming up with a realistic strategy to signifiantly improve the financing of the whole game. But that potential "win" option has been precluded by the SL Junta electing instead to pursue that goal solely for themselves. As I said, I fear ultimately to the detriment of everyone.
  11. Er...you mean just like the current deal with Sky? Who own the rights, but have declined to provide a package? In any case, it would HAVE to be a resale of rights - since they would be selling their OWN rights to a broadcaster. Whether the (unencumbered) rights to non-SL RL have any or no value is currently unable to be tested.
  12. It is if you are a Championship club, given the alternative.
  13. I ask again, what would be in it for SLE? Paying for streaming rights for a separate competition, which they could then sell on to a broadcaster, would seem to be a distraction from their own competition and operations. Why would the non-SL clubs sell their broadcast rights to a competing (for viewers) business that intemds to then on-sell the rights to a broadcaster at a (presumed) profit?
  14. I think you will see, from comments on this thread, that there is very considerable scepticism over the objectivity of any future licensing, franchising or whatever. Not least, given the "licensing" experience (which I see many have used as an opportuity to kick Cas and Wakey). If the owners of the current SL clubs are the ones in charge of any future franchising or licensing, how likely is it that they would implement a process that could see their own club ejected from SL? Large flightless ugly avians and yuletide spring to mind...? And i'll say again, where has anyone suggested the Junta's actions are intended to hurt the lower leagues? Whilst hurt may well be a consequence of their actions, their intent is surely to do whatever is best for them. And the Devil take the hindmost.
×
×
  • Create New...