Jump to content

SL set for cash injection ?

leaguefan13

Recommended Posts

Stevoh

Stevoh

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Oh I don't know, wanting a large slice of a sport usually you'd want some say in its management.

 

Then the cost comes down drastically doesn't it - crikey, companies give shares away for nothing and pay salaries just to get people with the right contacts and management expertise involved with their business. You don't say to an investor, give us your money AND 30,000 hours a year of free management expertise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply
OMEGA

OMEGA

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

As has been pointed out previously, investing in sport is not a wise business decision. You don't see up and coming businessmen investing in clubs. Especially in rugby league, people do it for the sport itself rather than financial gain. Look at David Hughes at London and Ken Davy at Huddersfield. They don't do it for a profit, they do it for the sport and the team.

Even Eamonn McManus at St Helens, he came in to the club in 2002, saving us when we were in dire financial straits. It certainly wasn't to make a bit of money.

This is where the unnamed private equity company will be different. They will interested solely to make money. I can't claim to know much about the financial world, but to a layperson there is one obvious positive and negative.

The positive is that they see the sport as a worthwhile investment, something that they can make money out of. As a broadly loss-making sport, that would be a significant show of confidence in our sport's health.

The negative is how they intend to make money from us. How much control would they have? They may want to make significant changes to the face of the sport and how it's run from top to bottom. They certainly aren't going to invest out of the goodness of their hearts to plug a gaping hole in a club's overdraft.

This is not my area of expertise so I might be wildly out on the wrong tangent here, correct me if I am.

If I were an investment company looking to buy into a sports club right now I’d be looking at Leeds Utd for all the obvious reasons summed up by the words huge financial potential. A relatively small investment might get Leeds Utd into the Premier League, another maybe larger investment might make the Premiership contenders maybe get into Europe. At this point I’ll float them on the stock market or look for a Middle Eastern buyer and cash out.

If I were to switch from club to sport and from football to Rugby League, would it be possible to invest in the brand, build the profile, increase the value enormously then either float the sport or sell it to a big multinational broadcaster. Consider the interest in Canada and America at the moment, if that were to be invested in and a pan American/European competition were to be founded, invested in, produced, packaged and broadcast in the slickest most professional manner possible. The growth in value would be huge.

For an investor worth multiples of £Billions the cost to do this with Rugby League would be pocket change.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stevoh

Stevoh

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Super League comfortably washes its face every year. So much that it can distribute about £24m to its shareholders and another £5m in solidarity payments. 

The 'washes it's face commercially' opinion was not mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stevoh

Stevoh

Posted
Posted
Just now, scotchy1 said:

Then why was it in your post?

Because the person I had quoted, and was replying to, had written those exact words on this thread about 20mins ago. If you read a thread in sequence then you can see this quite clearly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Damien

Damien

Posted
Posted
Just now, Stevoh said:

Because the person I had quoted, and was replying to, had written those exact words on this thread about 20mins ago. If you read a thread in sequence then you can see this quite clearly. 

And its quite clear what I meant and it wasn't what you turned it into with your nonsensical Dragons Den pitch which completely ignored the £40 million a year TV deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toby Chopra

Toby Chopra

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Stevoh said:

See my reply above!

 

12 minutes ago, Stevoh said:

I agree but you don't buy-in and then do all the work! 

It's perfectly normal for PE to install new management and set a new strategic direction for a company, and conclude new contracts etc. It's literally what they're good at and is easily done in a minor sport (sorry) like RL. What they would need though, is majority control to achieve the gains they are targeting. I suspect the clubs and the RFL would baulk at that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stevoh

Stevoh

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Damien said:

And its quite clear what I meant and it wasn't what you turned it into with your nonsensical Dragons Den pitch which completely ignored the £40 million a year TV deal

 

The Dragon's Den analogy is actually quite useful as it demonstrates exactly what investors are looking for. 

For example, you now mention the £40m a year TV deal. Great. However, as a potential investor buying X-percent of SuperLeague, I might reasonably ask how much of that £40m will be ringfenced to pay me interest on my investment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stevoh

Stevoh

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

 

It's perfectly normal for PE to install new management and set a new strategic direction for a company, and conclude new contracts etc. It's literally what they're good at and is easily done in a minor sport (sorry) like RL. What they would need though, is majority control to achieve the gains they are targeting. I suspect the clubs and the RFL would baulk at that. 

 

And the PE fund would charge SuperLeague a handsome fee for the hours they put in. These people are not charitabe in the slightest, they are cutthroat barstewards who rinse assets for all they are worth and then some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Damien

Damien

Posted
Posted
Just now, Stevoh said:

 

The Dragon's Den analogy is actually quite useful as it demonstrates exactly what investors are looking for. 

For example, you now mention the £40m a year TV deal. Great. However, as a potential investor buying X-percent of SuperLeague, I might reasonably ask how much of that £40m will be ringfenced to pay me interest on my investment?

Were you not aware that Super League had a £40m a year TV deal? Why do you expect us to defend Rugby League and what it has to offer? Surely as a Rugby League fan you know what Rugby League has to offer for a PE firm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scubby

Scubby

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yorkshire Knight stops posting on Wednesday, Steveoh starts on Wednesday. Much the same posting style. Coincidence I'm sure.

I thought the writing style was more like former posters Barney and Gutterfax ? Could be wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stevoh

Stevoh

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Damien said:

Were you not aware that Super League had a £40m a year TV deal? Why do you expect us to defend Rugby League and what it has to offer? Surely as a Rugby League fan you know what Rugby League has to offer for a PE firm.

 

No I don't know what it has to offer, that's why I asked the fella who said that SL has lots of offer (without actually saying what it was). So far the reasons are that the current management are fairly hopeless so the product is underexposed, undersold and undervalued and there are two more payments of £40m before renegotiations with Sky happen. 

Imagine I am a hard-nosed investor, and not some dewey-eyed fan from Castleford who has just won the Euromillions! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stevoh

Stevoh

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Why would anyone accept investment that simply ringfenced the money they already had to pay someone else? 

That sounds like literally the worst business plan I could imagine.

Why would an investor invest their money in an enterprise with no guarantee, plan or mechanism to earn and/or get that investment working in their favour?

That sounds like literally the most inept lender I could imagine. 

1. PE Fund has money to invest
2. SL needs investment

Which party do you think holds the whip hand here?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smudger06

Smudger06

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Stevoh said:

Why would an investor invest their money in an enterprise with no guarantee, plan or mechanism to earn and/or get that investment working in their favour?

That sounds like literally the most inept lender I could imagine. 

1. PE Fund has money to invest
2. SL needs investment

Which party do you think holds the whip hand here?
 

There's a difference between a Lender & an Investor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.