Super League expecting to field investment offers in February

[Total Rugby League]

Super League clubs are likely to make a decision at their meeting in February on whether to sell part of their holding of Super League...

View the full article

[Mark S]

Looks like SL and therefore the clubs have been proactive in finding investment. Let’s hope the RFL don’t balls it up.

[Man of Kent]

Rothschild has been appointed broker. Structure changes afoot for 2022. 

[themainbrace]

What? We've got to wait another 2 years for a structure change?

[Smudger06]

Bonkers.....

[aj1908]

turns out mascord was right lol.

if it helped get a better tv deal then it might be ok

wonder how toronto fit in this.  they wont be getting any of that money thats for sure.

and if they return to franchising does that mean ottowa and toulose can be parachuted in

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, aj1908 said:

turns out mascord was right lol.

if it helped get a better tv deal then it might be ok

wonder how toronto fit in this.  they wont be getting any of that money thats for sure.

and if they return to franchising does that mean ottowa and toulose can be parachuted in

And what does that mean for the non SL clubs going forward ?

[Smudger06]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

And what does that mean for the non SL clubs going forward ?

We will be better off. It's gonna end in tears. My question is do we let these grubby sell out clubs back into the fold when it all goes so very wrong for them. 

[aj1908]

by not giving toronto any of their share each SL club gets more than if it was a 12 team league.  

surely they couldve kept london broncos in super league and give them a cut of this.  couldve help them build their own ground.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, aj1908 said:

couldve help them build their own ground.

How?

[aj1908]

43 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

How?

Say it's 20 million pounds each a club.

It's what union got 

[ojx]

Why can't people see that this is not free money. The sport is selling a large stake of any future earnings, and a degree of autonomy. This thinking is why pay day loan companies are so successful.

[aj1908]

1 hour ago, ojx said:

Why can't people see that this is not free money. The sport is selling a large stake of any future earnings, and a degree of autonomy. This thinking is why pay day loan companies are so successful.

i agree with this.

but, if the each club got like 20 million pounds each it could be revolutionary 

ie :

1. cas and wakey could finally get their own grounds done properly.

2. wigan could get their own ground (if they could get out of the horrible lease they have).  the reebok sold for like 8 million pounds didnt it?

3. warrington could expand their ground to 20k

4. leeds, dunno probably pay off the loans on the new ground ,saving interest.

5. hull kr - help with their ground proposals.

dont know how it would help the clubs who dont own their own grounds.  if only bradford were in super league now they could get some money finally to start doing odsal or maybe fixing up horsfall.

the problem is the super league money got wasted.  i cant see how this wont be a repeat and sells off the games future

it is very interesting development though.  if it was only invested in stadia it would probably pay itself back many times over.  these are lasting assets.  plus the PE firm could share in increased tv money.  the RFL appear clueless in getting good value for their tv deals.

maybe elstone is finally becoming more of a yesman who does nothing 

[Eddie]

7 hours ago, aj1908 said:

turns out mascord was right lol.

if it helped get a better tv deal then it might be ok

wonder how toronto fit in this.  they wont be getting any of that money thats for sure.

and if they return to franchising does that mean ottowa and toulose can be parachuted in

Why would anyone want to parachute either a club that doesn’t exist yet or one that gets barely 1,000 fans to its play off games into SL?

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, aj1908 said:

Say it's 20 million pounds each a club.

It's what union got 

I doubt RL clubs would get that, or anywhere near it.

[aj1908]

 

 

12 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Why would anyone want to parachute either a club that doesn’t exist yet or one that gets barely 1,000 fans to its play off games into SL?

Toulose have gotten more than 1k to some games 

It worked for led Catalans.

I think.in super league They can get better crowds than Catalans do tbh

I can't see them getting in under p and r they will bottle it 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

And what does that mean for the non SL clubs going forward ?

This is not money for nothing. It’s money now, but SL will be repaying it forever (% of tv revenue) it’s a terrible idea.

It’s like selling a house you own and renting it back indefinitely. In the long run you will be worse off.

If any non SL club gets into SL in the future, they will be paying for this (through lower tv money as private equity takes part of tv income) despite getting nothing from it. Ambitious Championship and League One clubs stand to lose the most from a deal like this.

[The 4 of Us]

4 hours ago, aj1908 said:

Say it's 20 million pounds each a club.

It's what union got 

It’ll likely be no where near that amount. They’re spinning this as “tens of millions” i.e. £20M plus. Not hundreds. 

[cookey]

Please,it will be a relatively minor percentage of what rugby union got.

As previously stated,its then a matter of what rl clubs are allowed to do with any money - pay off debts,increase salary for the same players or actually invest in the clubs/game?

On past performance,I wouldn't be hopeful. They have wasted capital before,this time,if they waste it,they've given away future income. What good would it do giving Huddersfield £5 mill? About the only club I can think of who might use it wisely,is Wakefield,as they now own their own ground.

Paying off existing debt/owners isn't an investment! Paying the same players more money isn't an investment.

[aj1908]

16 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

It’ll likely be no where near that amount. They’re spinning this as “tens of millions” i.e. £20M plus. Not hundreds. 

If it's for a similar percentage of the game as union gave away then it's pointless 

The money won't be game changing.  

If pe firms get sat 25 percent of the game and future revenues then that's worth a lot ?

The value of this in today's terms would be hundreds of millions 

So if say  private equiy gets 15 million pounds a year as their share of future super league revenue that's worth around 200 million as a present value sum today 

Or maybe they are selling a very small share 

Otherwise they are grossly underselling themselves 

Didn't the cvc deal value union at over 800 million pounds?

Surely that's a benchmark for super league those clubs aren't much better 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

If the last paragraph of the article is anything to go by, it doesn't sound like the Super League clubs would be getting much of the money anyway.

"League Express also understands that any investment in Super League, regardless of the amount, will not be simply given to the clubs to reduce their own indebtedness. Rather it will be invested to broaden the appeal of the game to a wider audience while also boosting participation."

That suggests to me that it would be invested more in the grassroots which is certainly a good thing. Definitely better than just paying off a club's debts and the money never seen again while new debts just start accumulating.

[Man of Kent]

I’m very much in favour of PE investment if it allows Super League to get to ‘the next level’ through enlightened long-term investments in stadia, a beefed-up centralised marketing machine and in participation. 

I’m not in favour if it’s just to recruit the Matt Frawleys of this world.

[aj1908]

16 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

If the last paragraph of the article is anything to go by, it doesn't sound like the Super League clubs would be getting much of the money anyway.

"League Express also understands that any investment in Super League, regardless of the amount, will not be simply given to the clubs to reduce their own indebtedness. Rather it will be invested to broaden the appeal of the game to a wider audience while also boosting participation."

That suggests to me that it would be invested more in the grassroots which is certainly a good thing. Definitely better than just paying off a club's debts and the money never seen again while new debts just start accumulating.

what happens when the money runs out? grassroots will shrink again.  and super league will be left with reduced revenues.

unless its a way to raise revenues it will fail

[The Hallucinating Goose]

9 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

what happens when the money runs out? grassroots will shrink again.  and super league will be left with reduced revenues.

unless its a way to raise revenues it will fail

If the money was used to buy equipment, renovate or build clubhouses and pitches then there would be more permanent infrastructure in place for the grassroots. It would gives clubs more of a presence in their communities and thus more exposure. You can't shrink the permanent infrastructure of the grassroots unless clubs sell off their assets which is their own business and would be incredibly stupid. The grassroots would shrink if participation numbers dropped again which is less likely to happen if the clubs had a bigger presence as I say. 

Broadening the appeal of the game is the bit in the quote which I found very vague. I'd like some more info there because there doesn't seem to be an obvious quick fix to that problem and that certainly comes into increasing the participation at grassroots level. 

I do agree that reducing clubs revenues is daft and there would have to be a very clear and confident business plan in place to take the risk I think. If there was some way that almost certain proof could be presented that investing in the grassroots and wider appeal of the game could get more people through the turnstiles then it might be worth the plunge cos I think that is the ultimate goal here. If this is all about getting more people involved and thus creating new fans that will go to games then that will plug the hole that will be left by the lost revenue but it is a very big risk. 

On the subject of broadening the appeal of the game, what kind of thing do people think could be done?

[Robthegasman]

10 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

And what does that mean for the non SL clubs going forward ?

This is only a personal opinion.

My feeling is that we will certainly semi professionally lose a huge number of clubs outside Super League at the end of 2021.Some will die,others will probably go to the amateur ranks.

 I think those who do survive in whatever capacity be it rebranded names or yes even merged ones will be part of a Super League 1 division which I think they will name it something like Championship Rugby League.And I predict 10 clubsin each division.