Jump to content

Private Equity


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, iangidds said:

It does not go for all my previous statement as there was a great deal of help and positive actions, The film hit the stumbling blocks when it got to the men with zero vision 

You should try ' selling ' a merchandise collaboration deal to them as I tried a decade ago ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply
41 minutes ago, iangidds said:

I tell you that meeting the powers that be shocked me to the core, I’ve never seen such a shambles; old fashioned idiots I’m afraid! I hope to make the film one day but it won’t benefit RL financially as it was originally intended to do so

the bosses of the game are getting paid very well too.  what a shame this is allowed to continue.  when they replaced nigel i thought it had to be an improvement.  its like the cloned him.

his solutions to problems is ridiculous eg challenge cup crowd when les catalans made history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If PE firms interested in buying in they must see an upside to the value of our game

Question is how do they see that being achieved; mergers, international big city clubs, franchises, link with union etc

PE firms are also always looking for their exit route to turn profit into hard cash. Usually aim to get in, grow and get out in 5 years or so. 

Would be nice to have some strategic thinking in place to grow our game. I am not sure however that we will all like the outcome of that

Is a case of be careful of what you wish for 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, iangidds said:

I tell you that meeting the powers that be shocked me to the core, I’ve never seen such a shambles; old fashioned idiots I’m afraid! I hope to make the film one day but it won’t benefit RL financially as it was originally intended to do so

Surprised by that comment, I can believe that about administrators, but Rugby League club chairman by and large are more approachable and open than the majority of owners within sports. and it should nver be forgotten do dig deep into their own pockets to subsidise your entertainment for the vast majority of Rugby League Clubs rely on what is descried as "significant shareholder support"

North American Clubs will bring nothing to the Super League table. its significant that the Union Pro 14 which is transcontinental abandoned any thoughts of including North American teams. The basic problem  for League is this, as has been posted so many times on here, that fact that League remained stuck fast in its heartlands rather than chose to expand means that you restrict the number of players, sponsors, Investors and TV interest.

If you had a successful London club then it would not be gamechanger in itself but would improve the leagues commercial position but you could say the same about a successful Newcastle Club or Cardiff Club or Birmingham Club or Bristol Club or Edinburgh Club. It would broaden the games base. 

Sponsors and Broadcasters sell their products in this country not elsewhere. As Adam Pearson says once your start getting more non-UK clubs in you reduce the leagues appeal. (NB the French clubs are different in that the whole idea was to support a traditional Rugby League heartland area and should have been to develop the French national side to be a viable competitior in the northern hemisphere - the fact it has not is another thread).

As it stands the next TV deal will be another SKY take it or leave it offer for less as a "filler" sport which will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of full time clubs either through Super League dropping to 10 as advocated by Ken Davy or Super League beginning to look like pre-1996 Rugby League with about 6 Full Time clubs and the rest part-time.

As for private equity, these firms only invest in sports they think have a national appeal and can turn a profit through Broadcasting deals and with every such offer there's a catch. If say CVC buys 15% of Unions Six Nations then the Union authorities will only get 85% of any increased deal. Equally the greater the private investment in the sport the more the private Investors want to tinker with the sport to increase their profits. For that reason most Cricket Boards resist Private Investors in their T20 leagues.

So If a private equity form was to buy a substantial chunk of Super League all I will say to some on here is is be careful what you wish for.

 

 

 

Quote

When the pinch comes the common people will turn out to be more intelligent than the clever ones. I certainly hope so.

George Orwell
FjKZzCd.png

You either own NFTs or women’s phone numbers but not both

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RL has a national appeal.  It is complete BS that it doesn't.  Sky RL viewing figures are strong all over the UK.  I know loads of people who watch it in the SE of England and don't have a team or a strong local team.  It's not the biggest sport in the UK by any stretch.  It's in a strange place just behind the mainstream but ahead of all other pro sports leagues.  There's obviously value there or Sky wouldn't have been paying millions for it for 20 odd years.  Yes we could be bigger, and yes the people running the sport are very poor (especially when you consider what some of them earn) but there's no reason to be all doom and gloom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Surprised by that comment, I can believe that about administrators, but Rugby League club chairman by and large are more approachable and open than the majority of owners within sports. and it should nver be forgotten do dig deep into their own pockets to subsidise your entertainment for the vast majority of Rugby League Clubs rely on what is descried as "significant shareholder support"

North American Clubs will bring nothing to the Super League table. its significant that the Union Pro 14 which is transcontinental abandoned any thoughts of including North American teams. The basic problem  for League is this, as has been posted so many times on here, that fact that League remained stuck fast in its heartlands rather than chose to expand means that you restrict the number of players, sponsors, Investors and TV interest.

If you had a successful London club then it would not be gamechanger in itself but would improve the leagues commercial position but you could say the same about a successful Newcastle Club or Cardiff Club or Birmingham Club or Bristol Club or Edinburgh Club. It would broaden the games base. 

Sponsors and Broadcasters sell their products in this country not elsewhere. As Adam Pearson says once your start getting more non-UK clubs in you reduce the leagues appeal. (NB the French clubs are different in that the whole idea was to support a traditional Rugby League heartland area and should have been to develop the French national side to be a viable competitior in the northern hemisphere - the fact it has not is another thread).

As it stands the next TV deal will be another SKY take it or leave it offer for less as a "filler" sport which will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of full time clubs either through Super League dropping to 10 as advocated by Ken Davy or Super League beginning to look like pre-1996 Rugby League with about 6 Full Time clubs and the rest part-time.

As for private equity, these firms only invest in sports they think have a national appeal and can turn a profit through Broadcasting deals and with every such offer there's a catch. If say CVC buys 15% of Unions Six Nations then the Union authorities will only get 85% of any increased deal. Equally the greater the private investment in the sport the more the private Investors want to tinker with the sport to increase their profits. For that reason most Cricket Boards resist Private Investors in their T20 leagues.

So If a private equity form was to buy a substantial chunk of Super League all I will say to some on here is is be careful what you wish for.

 

 

 

whats funny about this post is you see toronto offer nothing to super league but when someone says melbourne storm dont bring much to the nrl you didnt agree lol.

the super 15 has a south american team in it and they are apparently doing very well.

toronto are costing super league nothing.

indeed if elstone or rimmer had any nouse to them, they wouldve made super league a 13 team competition this year and kept london up rather than keeping the sky money they save for other purposes.

super league has trouble attracting large, international sponsors.  toronto can change  this.

london are doing ok now in that ground.  its a shame all the money hughes has spent on them, it coulve paid for their own ground by now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tre Cool said:

RL has a national appeal.  It is complete BS that it doesn't.  Sky RL viewing figures are strong all over the UK.  I know loads of people who watch it in the SE of England and don't have a team or a strong local team.  It's not the biggest sport in the UK by any stretch.  It's in a strange place just behind the mainstream but ahead of all other pro sports leagues.  There's obviously value there or Sky wouldn't have been paying millions for it for 20 odd years.  Yes we could be bigger, and yes the people running the sport are very poor (especially when you consider what some of them earn) but there's no reason to be all doom and gloom.

didnt people say last time the tv rights would go down and they didnt.  maybe they will, maybe they wont.  right now its random people just making stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Surprised by that comment, I can believe that about administrators, but Rugby League club chairman by and large are more approachable and open than the majority of owners within sports. and it should nver be forgotten do dig deep into their own pockets to subsidise your entertainment for the vast majority of Rugby League Clubs rely on what is descried as "significant shareholder support"

North American Clubs will bring nothing to the Super League table. its significant that the Union Pro 14 which is transcontinental abandoned any thoughts of including North American teams. The basic problem  for League is this, as has been posted so many times on here, that fact that League remained stuck fast in its heartlands rather than chose to expand means that you restrict the number of players, sponsors, Investors and TV interest.

If you had a successful London club then it would not be gamechanger in itself but would improve the leagues commercial position but you could say the same about a successful Newcastle Club or Cardiff Club or Birmingham Club or Bristol Club or Edinburgh Club. It would broaden the games base. 

Sponsors and Broadcasters sell their products in this country not elsewhere. As Adam Pearson says once your start getting more non-UK clubs in you reduce the leagues appeal. (NB the French clubs are different in that the whole idea was to support a traditional Rugby League heartland area and should have been to develop the French national side to be a viable competitior in the northern hemisphere - the fact it has not is another thread).

As it stands the next TV deal will be another SKY take it or leave it offer for less as a "filler" sport which will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of full time clubs either through Super League dropping to 10 as advocated by Ken Davy or Super League beginning to look like pre-1996 Rugby League with about 6 Full Time clubs and the rest part-time.

As for private equity, these firms only invest in sports they think have a national appeal and can turn a profit through Broadcasting deals and with every such offer there's a catch. If say CVC buys 15% of Unions Six Nations then the Union authorities will only get 85% of any increased deal. Equally the greater the private investment in the sport the more the private Investors want to tinker with the sport to increase their profits. For that reason most Cricket Boards resist Private Investors in their T20 leagues.

So If a private equity form was to buy a substantial chunk of Super League all I will say to some on here is is be careful what you wish for.

 

 

 

It was a few of the administrators that were the problem ,  there was a tremendous amount of positive efforts from many others I may add

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

I'm nost sure how much of this is true but it sounds really encouraging

www.theroar.com.au/2019/12/28/days-of-nrl-raids-on-englands-stars-could-be-numbered/amp/

Steve mascord now there's a credible journalist.

Isn't control over super league now taken away from the rfl.

The article says it's up to the rfl to lend it to clubs as they see fit.  That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

If clubs want to spend more on players just raise the cap and look for more cashed up club owners 

If private equity takes out of future revenues how can this mean there's more money in the game 

Why is England vs Samoa being played in Australia? That is idiocy of the highest order 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aj1908 said:

Steve mascord now there's a credible journalist.

Isn't control over super league now taken away from the rfl.

The article says it's up to the rfl to lend it to clubs as they see fit.  That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

If clubs want to spend more on players just raise the cap and look for more cashed up club owners 

If private equity takes out of future revenues how can this mean there's more money in the game 

Why is England vs Samoa being played in Australia? That is idiocy of the highest order 

Mascord I know is quite tight with a high ranking RFL man , so there might be something in it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aj1908 said:

Why is England vs Samoa being played in Australia? That is idiocy of the highest order 

Contrary to rumour they like to hold them in Oz because of the faith and confidence they have in international RL.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, aj1908 said:

indeed if elstone or rimmer had any nouse to them, they wouldve made super league a 13 team competition this year and kept london up rather than keeping the sky money they save for other purposes.

super league has trouble attracting large, international sponsors.  toronto can change  this.

london are doing ok now in that ground.  its a shame all the money hughes has spent on them, it coulve paid for their own ground by now

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 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.

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, aj1908 said:

The article says it's up to the rfl to lend it to clubs as they see fit.  That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

No it doesn’t “and the Super League administration decides what each club needs to be sustainable.” This is the SL Board as ringmasters. It removes Rimmer et al from the equation and puts the expansion decisions and who to build up or not firmly in the hands of SL themselves. That might be seen as a bit of a backward step unless the investors themselves are the ones who call the shots about where they see the future growth. 

030910105148.jpg

http://www.wiganstpats.org

Producing Players Since 1910

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

No it doesn’t “and the Super League administration decides what each club needs to be sustainable.” This is the SL Board as ringmasters. It removes Rimmer et al from the equation and puts the expansion decisions and who to build up or not firmly in the hands of SL themselves. That might be seen as a bit of a backward step unless the investors themselves are the ones who call the shots about where they see the future growth. 

So the strong  super league clubs are going to vote to give themselves less money to support the weaker ones or for expansion lol 

I've seen what they did with Toronto's share of the t.v. money.  This sounds so dodgy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

So the strong  super league clubs are going to vote to give themselves less money to support the weaker ones or for expansion lol 

I've seen what they did with Toronto's share of the t.v. money.  This sounds so dodgy 

There is a bit Turkeys and Christmas about this but it’s moving towards a franchising model that would probably suit best anyway. Effectively in order to get the possibility of a share each club has to be bound by the terms on which the money is invested. Although it makes SL stronger the clubs get less of a say. 

030910105148.jpg

http://www.wiganstpats.org

Producing Players Since 1910

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So according to the posts above the RFL who everyone says are useless are out of the reckoning and the clubs who are largely self-serving will have less power ...... er isn't that what everyone has been saying  are the problems for forever?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that any Club Chairman wanting to get their hands on any additional money,should have to write off any existing debt. That would show whether they are in this for the good of the game or merely to retrieve what they have already 'invested'. I fully accept that some well meaning owners may not be in a postion to write off existing debt,in which case,I'm afraid they shouldn't be entitled to any additional funds.

Remember,Private Equities first priority is to make money,they are not a charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The 4 of Us said:

There is a bit Turkeys and Christmas about this but it’s moving towards a franchising model that would probably suit best anyway. Effectively in order to get the possibility of a share each club has to be bound by the terms on which the money is invested. Although it makes SL stronger the clubs get less of a say. 

Yes thats true about it going to franchising

If they did buy in it would probably be the end of p and r.  Suddenly I'm warming to this idea lol 

If the strong super league clubs did actually take less this would be a good thing.

It's what afl does.  Their weak clubs get 25 million from the game.  The strong clubs get like 12 million.

Dave Smith wanted to try this in the nrl but the clubs wouldn't allow it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes 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. 

Agreed 

But how would the pe firms be paid back down the track 

The worst case scenario is clubs blow this money on players or debts then basically have sold off part of future revenues forever 

People on here hated koucash.  He was a genuine fan and wrote off his money.  These guys are nothing like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...