Private Equity

[The British Lion]

13 hours ago, aj1908 said:

rfl dont have that kind of money.  storm have had one hundred million on top of the money they get like every other club.

 

Yeah I get that. Unfortunate really....in an ideal world.

[GUBRATS]

9 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

The idea of disequal funding or funding for specific projects becomes nonsensical if the clubs are deciding where it goes. That makes no sense as clubs would obviously prioritise themselves and, for the poorer clubs, the ones who need investment, paying off debts would be the most pressing concern. 

It also becomes a bit of a nonsense under P+R. Just doesnt work or make any sense. Why are a PE firm going to put money in to the game and see, say Salford, take a couple of million to spend on marketing and growing Salford, if Salford are then relegated and replaced with someone else? That someone else then has to deal with less money as part of the TV funding now goes to PE. 

For PE to work and for the game to be attractive to it, there needs to be an end to P+R, it just doesnt fit. The money to go on specific projects, the money largely to go on assets physical and IP, and there to be a set exit plan in 5 - 10 years. 

Done well this really could be a game changer for the sport in this country. If say £200m comes in, we spend £130m on Stadiums for London, Bradford, Wakefield/Castleford and parts thereof and part of say elland road (a refurbished one) thats all money that helps clubs build, building the value of SL. 

Then £30-50m on creating a platform for all games to be shown, that is the infrastructure plus platform (plus imo the rights to the championship, league 1 and NRL) for a subscription platform,

and £20-40m on marketing and specific projects (such as 9s) 

then in 10 years time the game will be in a much better position, the PE can exit and the growth come back to the game. 

SL might be , after 10 years locked out , not sure what state the Lower tiers would be in 

[M j M]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Most of them wouldnt see a difference 

Based on how attendances and interest declined during the years of licencing that's probably not correct. 

We need to have our eyes open about what all this talk of investment and expansion means. Yes pursue it but the way some people arrogantly talk on here you'd think strength in the game's heartlands wasn't also critical. 

[aj1908]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

The strength of the heartland game isnt getting 400 at Hunslet, nor is it really fundamentally damaged by getting 1800 at leigh instead of 2.5k

Most clubs, in almost all years pay no mind whatsoever to promotion to SL. It has no effect on them.

The strength of the game in the heartlands lay in the amateur game and a few SL clubs, not a few clubs in the championship. It's crazy to expect the entire game to structure itself around this to the obvious detriment of other areas.

agreed.  people argue that their championship club is important to rugby league to keep the juniors in the area going, when in reality there will probably be a super league club down the road or close by which the juniors could go too.  its not much of a heartland when these clubs crowds are poor and they struggle for finances yearly for many of them.

[GUBRATS]

9 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

agreed.  people argue that their championship club is important to rugby league to keep the juniors in the area going, when in reality there will probably be a super league club down the road or close by which the juniors could go too.  its not much of a heartland when these clubs crowds are poor and they struggle for finances yearly for many of them.

Which is fine and too a degree quite true , but don't expect fans of clubs who will decline to be happy about it 

Do you support any club in particular ?

[Smudger06]

19 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Well you would expect that those figures can be worked out in advance. 

Say 25% of the commercial revenue with a buy out of £200m in 10 years time. 

At current levels that would see them get pretty much a 50% return on revenue. 

Where is the £200m coming from to buy them out in 10 yrs time? 

[aj1908]

38 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Which is fine and too a degree quite true , but don't expect fans of clubs who will decline to be happy about it 

Do you support any club in particular ?

in england no.  as an expansionist i like seeing les catalans doing well, and obviously toronto.  it will be interesting to see if they last or if it fails, why. 

but its good to see a club like hull kr trying to further improve their ground.  id be happy if wakefield and cas got their grounds.  equally if they didnt i eventually would like to see them out of super league.

as much as im not a fan of leigh their crowds in super league were actually quite good.

 

 

[GUBRATS]

11 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

in england no.  as an expansionist i like seeing les catalans doing well, and obviously toronto.  it will be interesting to see if they last or if it fails, why. 

but its good to see a club like hull kr trying to further improve their ground.  id be happy if wakefield and cas got their grounds.  equally if they didnt i eventually would like to see them out of super league.

as much as im not a fan of leigh their crowds in super league were actually quite good.

 

 

That doesn't answer my question 

I asked 

Do you expect fans of clubs that will most probably decline as a result to be happy about it ?

Do you support ( as in pay to watch ) any particular club ?

[aj1908]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

That doesn't answer my question 

I asked 

Do you expect fans of clubs that will most probably decline as a result to be happy about it ?

Do you support ( as in pay to watch ) any particular club ?

theres winners and losers in everything in life when there is change.  thats the point i was making.  if people are complaining about this change because it will hurt their club - whilst it may be good for the rest of the game - then it might be good to ignore the complaints.

league tickets arent free last time i checked so when i go to games i have to pay for tickets.

are you trying to get into a contest as to who pays to go to the most games a year lol really?

[Bob8]

On 28/12/2019 at 23:40, The British Lion said:

Not sure about this. I have a massive want for London to prosper as a SL club. They performed admirably well on the field last season in SL, and I was sad to see them go down.

However, I viewed it in their current circumstances, and thought, how are they 'ever' going to propel themselves upward from lets face it, what looks like a league 1 stadium, small following, with the added costs of running a SL team?

I have no major fixes to be honest. But, I wonder, if the SL board (id have previously said the RFL) could bankroll the project in London, as did the NRL with Melbourne.

In short, we need some central, purposeful investment to see expansion - In the UK. David Hughes has been MORE than a faithful, and committed investor....with little assistance in terms of vision from whoever (RFL + SL authorities). I was sad to see London playing in what looks like an amateur ground, with a few thousand followers, with playing so well, to get relegated.

London needs a successful team, a decent stadium, a brand (so many have been explored and not worked)...but I do believe there is a strong place for London in RL.

How often do people look at London and think "there is a city desperately short of top class sport and a proper stadium!"

I would suggest rarely, which is the problem London Broncos have.

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, aj1908 said:

theres winners and losers in everything in life when there is change.  thats the point i was making.  if people are complaining about this change because it will hurt their club - whilst it may be good for the rest of the game - then it might be good to ignore the complaints.

league tickets arent free last time i checked so when i go to games i have to pay for tickets.

are you trying to get into a contest as to who pays to go to the most games a year lol really?

Indeed , so you admit this probably will damage some clubs , do you expect the supporters of those clubs to be happy about it ?

From your non answer , I assume it is a no , you don't follow any particular club that will be affected , that's fine , just say so , but I retain the right to dismiss your opinion as having no emotion attached to it 

[aj1908]

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Indeed , so you admit this probably will damage some clubs , do you expect the supporters of those clubs to be happy about it ?

From your non answer , I assume it is a no , you don't follow any particular club that will be affected , that's fine , just say so , but I retain the right to dismiss your opinion as having no emotion attached to it 

What non answer.?

Yes I think.fans of clubs that are hurt will complain.  I said that before.

But their complaints are based on selfish interests.

To be fair clubs outside of super league are there for a reason.

Leigh had a crack so did Widnes.  Maybe super league is beyond them if we are being realistic.

And frankly I'm.flabbergasted how much money the rfl and super league clubs found for Leigh whilst Toronto didn't get a penny.

If I were a Leigh fan of be feeling pretty lucky tbh 

[GUBRATS]

Just now, aj1908 said:

What non answer.?

Yes I think.fans of clubs that are hurt will complain.  I said that before.

But their complaints are based on selfish interests.

To be fair clubs outside of super league are there for a reason.

Leigh had a crack so did Widnes.  Maybe super league is beyond them if we are being realistic.

And frankly I'm.flabbergasted how much money the rfl and super league clubs found for Leigh whilst Toronto didn't get a penny.

If I were a Leigh fan of be feeling pretty lucky tbh 

As I said , you have no emotional attachment , so I will ignore your opinion 

[aj1908]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

The clubs, via the growth the game would see. 

It won't be.

It will.be whatever share it's worth then.

If say they got 25 percent now for 200 million then down the track they'd want 25 percent of what it's worth then.

It's not a loan it's equity.

[Gooleboy]

On 29/12/2019 at 14:37, scotchy1 said:

The idea of disequal funding or funding for specific projects becomes nonsensical if the clubs are deciding where it goes. That makes no sense as clubs would obviously prioritise themselves and, for the poorer clubs, the ones who need investment, paying off debts would be the most pressing concern. 

It also becomes a bit of a nonsense under P+R. Just doesnt work or make any sense. Why are a PE firm going to put money in to the game and see, say Salford, take a couple of million to spend on marketing and growing Salford, if Salford are then relegated and replaced with someone else? That someone else then has to deal with less money as part of the TV funding now goes to PE. 

For PE to work and for the game to be attractive to it, there needs to be an end to P+R, it just doesnt fit. The money to go on specific projects, the money largely to go on assets physical and IP, and there to be a set exit plan in 5 - 10 years. 

Done well this really could be a game changer for the sport in this country. If say £200m comes in, we spend £130m on Stadiums for London, Bradford, Wakefield/Castleford and parts thereof and part of say elland road (a refurbished one) thats all money that helps clubs build, building the value of SL. 

Then £30-50m on creating a platform for all games to be shown, that is the infrastructure plus platform (plus imo the rights to the championship, league 1 and NRL) for a subscription platform,

and £20-40m on marketing and specific projects (such as 9s) 

then in 10 years time the game will be in a much better position, the PE can exit and the growth come back to the game. 

So Bradford, London, Castleford and Wakefield who have done nothing to improve their grounds in the last 25 years, just sit tight and wait for a big hand out?

[GUBRATS]

12 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

So Bradford, London, Castleford and Wakefield who have done nothing to improve their grounds in the last 25 years, just sit tight and wait for a big hand out?

In truth only Saints have been able ( Leeds as well eventually ) to fund their own stadium , virtually everybody else ( including the club I support , Leigh ) has received ' hand outs ' in one way or another 

If as Scotchy has suggested those 4 were to receive help you would assume they themselves wouldn't ' own ' whatever share of their stadium was provided by the SL money , that would remain with SLE ( but be able to purchase by the club ) 

[M j M]

21 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

In truth only Saints have been able ( Leeds as well eventually ) to fund their own stadium , virtually everybody else ( including the club I support , Leigh ) has received ' hand outs ' in one way or another 

If as Scotchy has suggested those 4 were to receive help you would assume they themselves wouldn't ' own ' whatever share of their stadium was provided by the SL money , that would remain with SLE ( but be able to purchase by the club ) 

Saints stadium was part funded by the sale of their ground and the rest from their backers and enabled by a supermarket development. Not massively different to how Warrington did theirs.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

23 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

In truth only Saints have been able ( Leeds as well eventually ) to fund their own stadium , virtually everybody else ( including the club I support , Leigh ) has received ' hand outs ' in one way or another 

If as Scotchy has suggested those 4 were to receive help you would assume they themselves wouldn't ' own ' whatever share of their stadium was provided by the SL money , that would remain with SLE ( but be able to purchase by the club ) 

Leeds haven't funded their own stadium (redevelopment) by any stretch of the imagination and are merely (sub) tenants of the new South Stand...... without significant backing from the Council that would still just be a drawing.

[GUBRATS]

23 minutes ago, M j M said:

Saints stadium was part funded by the sale of their ground and the rest from their backers and enabled by a supermarket development. Not massively different to how Warrington did theirs.

As far as I am aware , Warrington contributed no financial input into the HJ 

[GUBRATS]

22 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Leeds haven't funded their own stadium (redevelopment) by any stretch of the imagination and are merely (sub) tenants of the new South Stand...... without significant backing from the Council that would still just be a drawing.

As far as I understand it they are paying off a significant portion of the new development , obviously their situation is more complicated than most with the dual ownership of the whole Headingley complex 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

20 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

As far as I understand it they are paying off a significant portion of the new development , obviously their situation is more complicated than most with the dual ownership of the whole Headingley complex 

Legal and General (Pension fund arm) has provided the funding for the new South stand (and own it).  They have then leased it for the next 42 years to Leeds City Council who then sublet it to Leeds RLFC.

[M j M]

29 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Leeds haven't funded their own stadium (redevelopment) by any stretch of the imagination and are merely (sub) tenants of the new South Stand...... without significant backing from the Council that would still just be a drawing.

Leeds paid about £6m of the cost from their own cash reserves. The financing structures keep Yorkshire happy but at the end of the day it's just a way of getting a lower interest rate through the council's involvement.

Leeds still have to pay the capital and the interest, can make overpayments and ownership reverts to them at the end of the deal so the substance is that of a complicated bit of bank financing rather than being tenants of anyone.

[GUBRATS]

12 minutes ago, M j M said:

Leeds paid about £6m of the cost from their own cash reserves. The financing structures keep Yorkshire happy but at the end of the day it's just a way of getting a lower interest rate through the council's involvement.

Leeds still have to pay the capital and the interest, can make overpayments and ownership reverts to them at the end of the deal so the substance is that of a complicated bit of bank financing rather than being tenants of anyone.

That's how I understood it to be , as I said in Leeds's instance it is more complicated than normal

[paulwalker71]

The overall point from the past batch of posts is that none of the SL clubs have actually funded new grounds from their own funds, nor have their owners paid for it.They just happened to have benefitted from being in 'the right place at the right time' to benefit from a scheme that was paid for by someone else.

Unfortunately for Wakefield, Castleford and Bradford (for somewhat different reasons that we don't need to discuss AGAIN) they haven't been so fortunate. 

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

That's how I understood it to be , as I said in Leeds's instance it is more complicated than normal

L&G seem to believe they are letting the property to Leeds MDC who are subletting to the 2 sports clubs https://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/legal-general-funds-headingley-stadium-redevelopment/