Jump to content

Robert Elstone... Why?


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

Elstone works for the Super League clubs was appointed by them and can only be removed by them. It's entirely a matter for the clubs if they want to keep paying for his services. He isn't working for anyone else and isn't paid by anyone else.

They've just voted 9-2 to keep him so I guess that's the end of the matter.

I think that may be an improvement on the original decision vote to create the post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It seems that Elstone wishes to sell 51% of SL to PE for something at or below £50 mill. Each club would receive around £4 mill or less,which would virtually all be used to pay off existing debt i.e. no investment. Already SL (Elstone) has spent a non recoverable sum of £750,000.

Clubs with unsuitable grounds will be rejected - Cas and Wakefield.

Clubs close to each other,one will be rejected. Hull and KR, Cas and Wakefield.

Clubs with unsustainable low crowds will be rejected,with,Salford,Huddersfield (around 20% of capacity.)

Not much left apart from deciding who will replace the 4/5 clubs rejected. Potentially London,Newcastle,Toulouse,maybe York. Oh and dont forget a bonus to Elstone for negotiating the deal.

Happy days,or more accurately,happy Elstone and happy 4/5 existing owners who get their money back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cookey said:

It seems that Elstone wishes to sell 51% of SL to PE for something at or below £50 mill. Each club would receive around £4 mill or less,which would virtually all be used to pay off existing debt i.e. no investment. Already SL (Elstone) has spent a non recoverable sum of £750,000.

Clubs with unsuitable grounds will be rejected - Cas and Wakefield.

Clubs close to each other,one will be rejected. Hull and KR, Cas and Wakefield.

Clubs with unsustainable low crowds will be rejected,with,Salford,Huddersfield (around 20% of capacity.)

Not much left apart from deciding who will replace the 4/5 clubs rejected. Potentially London,Newcastle,Toulouse,maybe York. Oh and dont forget a bonus to Elstone for negotiating the deal.

Happy days,or more accurately,happy Elstone and happy 4/5 existing owners who get their money back.

 

Just been reading about this, it's certainly interesting. Apparently the PE firm are already involved in TV deal negotiations according to Martyn Sadler.

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Just been reading about this, it's certainly interesting. Apparently the PE firm are already involved in TV deal negotiations according to Martyn Sadler.

Not bought my copy yet.

I assume the PE involved are CVC who have a track history in sport. Hull KR leaking  the issue of hedge fund investment now makes sense,.

So to do the proposals for a re definition of the structure below SL commented on these forums elsewhere makes sense

If it's 51% then we have sold the game at the top end and it will be subsumed in due course to  the RFU , initially as a derivate activity...

God help us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Just been reading about this, it's certainly interesting. Apparently the PE firm are already involved in TV deal negotiations according to Martyn Sadler.

Hi,I'm far from an expert but I do have a little knowledge. I'm sorry but this is truely disasterous,if the reporting is anything near accurate,which I suspect it is.

Non refundable fees,essentially means SL will HAVE to do a deal. PE ALWAYS squeeze when able. Fees will continue to rise,meaning whatever is left will continue to fall. Control will be lost. Essentially PE asset strip,so they will have some control/grip on assets,either in the form of tv revenue or even property. PE's only purpose in life is to make money at whatever cost. PE are far brighter than anyone SL/Elstone will employ.

Frankly,this is already a disaster if the figures and info are anywhere near accurate and it will only get worse.I have absolutely no idea how anyone with experience of PE could even be thinking about such a deal. I can only conclude from the information available,that a handful of existing owners are absolutely desperate to recover loans and that Elstone has another job lined up.

If I'm wrong come back and tell me. Someone please tell me how SL Clubs (whichever they end up being) can continue to survive on approp 50% to 75% of current revenue. The answer is simple,they cant.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cookey said:

Hi,I'm far from an expert but I do have a little knowledge. I'm sorry but this is truely disasterous,if the reporting is anything near accurate,which I suspect it is.

Non refundable fees,essentially means SL will HAVE to do a deal. PE ALWAYS squeeze when able. Fees will continue to rise,meaning whatever is left will continue to fall. Control will be lost. Essentially PE asset strip,so they will have some control/grip on assets,either in the form of tv revenue or even property. PE's only purpose in life is to make money at whatever cost. PE are far brighter than anyone SL/Elstone will employ.

Frankly,this is already a disaster if the figures and info are anywhere near accurate and it will only get worse.I have absolutely no idea how anyone with experience of PE could even be thinking about such a deal. I can only conclude from the information available,that a handful of existing owners are absolutely desperate to recover loans and that Elstone has another job lined up.

If I'm wrong come back and tell me. Someone please tell me how SL Clubs (whichever they end up being) can continue to survive on approp 50% to 75% of current revenue. The answer is simple,they cant.

Playing devils advocate, not being my area of expertise (as if I had one), would the answer not be that PE managing the game would look to increase commercial revenues to make their money back? The game doesn't really have any assets, it's just the players and the clubs which are all transient. I don't see what assets their are to strip. I do see a potential for running things better than they are right now which is to the level of a failing working mens club. 

  • Like 1

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Playing devils advocate, not being my area of expertise (as if I had one), would the answer not be that PE managing the game would look to increase commercial revenues to make their money back? The game doesn't really have any assets, it's just the players and the clubs which are all transient. I don't see what assets their are to strip. I do see a potential for running things better than they are right now which is to the level of a failing working mens club. 

I agree to a certain extent and frankly I'm trying to think of the angle. PE would be putting up a capital sum,however low,so they MUST have a guaranteed return. Revenue comes from tv deals,sponsorship and gate/match day income. Can they negociate a better tv deal that SL. Possibly but I doubt it. Can they attract better,more valuable sponsors.Possibly but again I doubt it. Can they increase match day revenue,no.

Initially they will take their percentage of SL revenue. How Clubs think they can survive on reduced annual income is beyond me. Surely the few clubs with assets cant be putting these up as surety? Forcing a merger of league and union is no guarantee of success and frankly,would probably fail.Unless I'm missing something,I genuinely think a few owners are selling the game,simply to recoup their loans and somehow PE get their hands on tv/sponsorship money or other assets(undefined) One can't imagine PE would go into this,with a view of killing the game but that would appear to be the outcome from the reporting I've read. Most things seem to come back to Elstones intentions. I can only hope I'm missing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cookey said:

I agree to a certain extent and frankly I'm trying to think of the angle. PE would be putting up a capital sum,however low,so they MUST have a guaranteed return. Revenue comes from tv deals,sponsorship and gate/match day income. Can they negociate a better tv deal that SL. Possibly but I doubt it. Can they attract better,more valuable sponsors.Possibly but again I doubt it. Can they increase match day revenue,no.

Initially they will take their percentage of SL revenue. How Clubs think they can survive on reduced annual income is beyond me. Surely the few clubs with assets cant be putting these up as surety? Forcing a merger of league and union is no guarantee of success and frankly,would probably fail.Unless I'm missing something,I genuinely think a few owners are selling the game,simply to recoup their loans and somehow PE get their hands on tv/sponsorship money or other assets(undefined) One can't imagine PE would go into this,with a view of killing the game but that would appear to be the outcome from the reporting I've read. Most things seem to come back to Elstones intentions. I can only hope I'm missing something.

I'd disagree with most of that though. The game massively undersells itself in this country and someone with more competence and perhaps more importantly access could run things a lot better. I think in RL it's not that we can't get ourselves through the door, I think we don't even know the door exists. The other code does, and always did mostly because of the socio-economic make up of the sport, it's always been nearer to finance and business. 

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I'd disagree with most of that though. The game massively undersells itself in this country and someone with more competence and perhaps more importantly access could run things a lot better. I think in RL it's not that we can't get ourselves through the door, I think we don't even know the door exists. The other code does, and always did mostly because of the socio-economic make up of the sport, it's always been nearer to finance and business. 

Hi,well,we'll have to see.Frankly,I can only conclude that by mistake/accident,something is being misreported or left out. Quite how an organisation could have spent a non returnable sum of £750,000 on the possibility of securing something at or under £50 mill,in return for giving away 51% control and I assume future revenue, is beyond me.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I'd disagree with most of that though. The game massively undersells itself in this country and someone with more competence and perhaps more importantly access could run things a lot better. I think in RL it's not that we can't get ourselves through the door, I think we don't even know the door exists. The other code does, and always did mostly because of the socio-economic make up of the sport, it's always been nearer to finance and business. 

I think this is a big misnomer to be honest. The argument that the game "undersells itself" or that "a better negotiator could do more" doesn't hold up to a lot of scrutiny. It's an easy answer to a much more complicated issue. 

The bigger issue is how much "value" the sport offers - and I would argue that it falls way short of offering the sort of value that broadcasters, sponsors and (aside from a hardy bunch of fans), the general public are looking for. SL's advertising space isn't worth the equivilent of a van full of pizzas because the game "didn't negotiate hard enough" and "sold itself short". The advertising space is worth the equivilent of a van full of pizzas because that's the value it provides the advertiser. 

PE isn't going to come in and start calling the shots on how to do things. They'll come in, provide the capital, and then start asking questions about when they're getting their money back, but don't expect hands-on involvement in the running of SL. If that capital is going to be used to find ways to add value to Super League and it's properties, then this can be a good move. If, however, it is going to go towards repaying "directors loans" that are on the books of various clubs, then the game is asking for trouble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I'd disagree with most of that though. The game massively undersells itself in this country and someone with more competence and perhaps more importantly access could run things a lot better. I think in RL it's not that we can't get ourselves through the door, I think we don't even know the door exists. The other code does, and always did mostly because of the socio-economic make up of the sport, it's always been nearer to finance and business. 

Having worked with two PE houses in much more conventional business sectors than Rugby League I'm happy to confirm that they are typically pretty incompetent and apply broad solutions to every business regardless of individual  circumstances. 

Rugby League isn't even close to being a normal business and thinking the application of so-called "business expertise" would turn it around overnight makes me shudder.

Every so called big businessman from Branson to Lenaghan has failed to make it pay and the only really successful administrator in the game today is one who knows the game inside out but never studied business, instead starting out by selling double glazing to fund his club.

I can't stress how big a disaster this whole thing would be for the game. These people will rape and pillage our game and leave it to rot when they realise that their big ideas don't work in a sporting environment.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cookey said:

It seems that Elstone wishes to sell 51% of SL to PE for something at or below £50 mill. Each club would receive around £4 mill or less,which would virtually all be used to pay off existing debt i.e. no investment. Already SL (Elstone) has spent a non recoverable sum of £750,000.

Clubs with unsuitable grounds will be rejected - Cas and Wakefield.

Clubs close to each other,one will be rejected. Hull and KR, Cas and Wakefield.

Clubs with unsustainable low crowds will be rejected,with,Salford,Huddersfield (around 20% of capacity.)

Not much left apart from deciding who will replace the 4/5 clubs rejected. Potentially London,Newcastle,Toulouse,maybe York. Oh and dont forget a bonus to Elstone for negotiating the deal.

Happy days,or more accurately,happy Elstone and happy 4/5 existing owners who get their money back.

 

That would be absolutely catastrophic for the game. Selling the family silver for such a paltry amount achieves absolutely nothing. Ridiculous.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, M j M said:

Having worked with two PE houses in much more conventional business sectors than Rugby League I'm happy to confirm that they are typically pretty incompetent and apply broad solutions to every business regardless of individual  circumstances. 

Rugby League isn't even close to being a normal business and thinking the application of so-called "business expertise" would turn it around overnight makes me shudder.

Every so called big businessman from Branson to Lenaghan has failed to make it pay and the only really successful administrator in the game today is one who knows the game inside out but never studied business, instead starting out by selling double glazing to fund his club.

I can't stress how big a disaster this whole thing would be for the game. These people will rape and pillage our game and leave it to rot when they realise that their big ideas don't work in a sporting environment.

I would hope in the very least they'd be looking to someone with a track record in sport? I'd be interested to see what the proposal is, I appreciate you've had a very bad experience in the past. 

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I agree with PE concerns- I think a big mistake. 

What is needed is an honest discussion of where teams are at. 

As a sport we have limited resource-  in essence we need teams to be categorised as:

Fully pro and challenging for trophies

Teams in between 

Semi pro, playing in championship 

I think there has to be sporting merit, but until we understand what is feasible for each club then we cant progress. 

Until that happens it's hard to know where to place resource. If a club wants to be fully pro then I think it's fair they get money to run an academy etc. Teams who dont run an academy deserve less for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think this is a big misnomer to be honest. The argument that the game "undersells itself" or that "a better negotiator could do more" doesn't hold up to a lot of scrutiny. It's an easy answer to a much more complicated issue. 

The bigger issue is how much "value" the sport offers - and I would argue that it falls way short of offering the sort of value that broadcasters, sponsors and (aside from a hardy bunch of fans), the general public are looking for. SL's advertising space isn't worth the equivilent of a van full of pizzas because the game "didn't negotiate hard enough" and "sold itself short". The advertising space is worth the equivilent of a van full of pizzas because that's the value it provides the advertiser. 

PE isn't going to come in and start calling the shots on how to do things. They'll come in, provide the capital, and then start asking questions about when they're getting their money back, but don't expect hands-on involvement in the running of SL. If that capital is going to be used to find ways to add value to Super League and it's properties, then this can be a good move. If, however, it is going to go towards repaying "directors loans" that are on the books of various clubs, then the game is asking for trouble. 

A few years ago we gave away the naming rights to league for free to Stobarts. We now get paid more than a million a year (IIRC) by Betfred. Was the value of that zero when Stobarts got it and has increased to a million or did we undersell ourselves on the Stobarts sponsorship? I would think it's the latter.

 

And with regards to PE not calling the shots, they're after 51% I would have thought that was some indication?

  • Like 1

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

A few years ago we gave away the naming rights to league for free to Stobarts. We now get paid more than a million a year (IIRC) by Betfred. Was the value of that zero when Stobarts got it and has increased to a million or did we undersell ourselves on the Stobarts sponsorship? I would think it's the latter.

 

And with regards to PE not calling the shots, they're after 51% I would have thought that was some indication?

Two points on that. Firstly, the clubs voted for the Stobart contract - I believe at the expense of a deal with Betfair. Secondly, the cash value may have been zero, but there was a percieved value in offer of advertising on Stobart trailors. I don't know what monetary value you put on that sort of promotional space, but it's not "zero". 

Now, I'm not for a second saying it was a good decision, but what I am saying is that if the Super League naming rights offered more value to advertisers than they did at the time, the Stobart deal doesn't even make it to a vote. If the value of the rights was higher, you have a greater number of potential sponsors answering the tender with more favourable terms.

The point I'm making is that "get better people" is an easy and lazy answer to the bigger problem. Yes, you need good people, but you also need to give them a good product - and historically, aside from a few notable exceptions, sponsorship of RL hasn't been one - especially in the digital age where reaching the sort of audience that RL is best at reaching is incredibly cheap to do. 

And wanting 51% of the equity doesn't mean you want 51$ of the running - just 51% of the bottom line.  

 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

And wanting 51% of the equity doesn't mean you want 51$ of the running - just 51% of the bottom line.  

 

I think that is way too simplistic.  51% deals are 51% for a reason, control over voting rights and therefore major decision making.

Edited by FearTheVee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cookey said:

It seems that Elstone wishes to sell 51% of SL to PE for something at or below £50 mill. Each club would receive around £4 mill or less,which would virtually all be used to pay off existing debt i.e. no investment. Already SL (Elstone) has spent a non recoverable sum of £750,000.

Clubs with unsuitable grounds will be rejected - Cas and Wakefield.

Clubs close to each other,one will be rejected. Hull and KR, Cas and Wakefield.

Clubs with unsustainable low crowds will be rejected,with,Salford,Huddersfield (around 20% of capacity.)

Not much left apart from deciding who will replace the 4/5 clubs rejected. Potentially London,Newcastle,Toulouse,maybe York. Oh and dont forget a bonus to Elstone for negotiating the deal.

Happy days,or more accurately,happy Elstone and happy 4/5 existing owners who get their money back.

 

By the criteria stated, London have both an unsustainable low crowd AND an unsuitable ground? How can they be brought in failing 2 points when others have been thrown out for failing just 1? 

It shows how these SL plans go to the dogs straight away and the sport gets more dire. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Two points on that. Firstly, the clubs voted for the Stobart contract - I believe at the expense of a deal with Betfair. Secondly, the cash value may have been zero, but there was a percieved value in offer of advertising on Stobart trailors. I don't know what monetary value you put on that sort of promotional space, but it's not "zero". 

Now, I'm not for a second saying it was a good decision, but what I am saying is that if the Super League naming rights offered more value to advertisers than they did at the time, the Stobart deal doesn't even make it to a vote. If the value of the rights was higher, you have a greater number of potential sponsors answering the tender with more favourable terms.

The point I'm making is that "get better people" is an easy and lazy answer to the bigger problem. Yes, you need good people, but you also need to give them a good product - and historically, aside from a few notable exceptions, sponsorship of RL hasn't been one - especially in the digital age where reaching the sort of audience that RL is best at reaching is incredibly cheap to do. 

And wanting 51% of the equity doesn't mean you want 51$ of the running - just 51% of the bottom line.  

 

OK so it's not zero but it's some intangible that I think we can realistically say is less than what the Betfred deal represents now. There's been an improvement on the deal yes? But fundamentally the competition hasn't changed, it's not like we suddenly had an upsurge in popularity. So we've done something different to what we did then and got a better deal, whether it be Elstone coming in? Who knows, none of us are close enough to it to speculate.

I just think saying that the value of a sponsorship is equal to whatever people will pay for it, in all cases, is reductive. That Papa Johns offer a bunch of pizzas for prominent advertising on Sky Sports programmes with viewership often in the hundreds of thousands, and we're daft enough to think that's a fair deal, does not make it a fair deal. 

In terms of the equity, they want a controlling share, and they are asking for 30% of future incomes. It's in the article. 

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

OK so it's not zero but it's some intangible that I think we can realistically say is less than what the Betfred deal represents now. There's been an improvement on the deal yes? But fundamentally the competition hasn't changed, it's not like we suddenly had an upsurge in popularity. So we've done something different to what we did then and got a better deal, whether it be Elstone coming in? Who knows, none of us are close enough to it to speculate.

I just think saying that the value of a sponsorship is equal to whatever people will pay for it, in all cases, is reductive. That Papa Johns offer a bunch of pizzas for prominent advertising on Sky Sports programmes with viewership often in the hundreds of thousands, and we're daft enough to think that's a fair deal, does not make it a fair deal. 

In terms of the equity, they want a controlling share, and they are asking for 30% of future incomes. It's in the article. 

When the deal was first announced I actually did the numbers on the value of what SL was offering Papa John's, when you consider the rack-rate for that sort of pitch side advertising and the typical CPM of the highlights videos they were sponsoring. No agenda - just based on my experience of buying ad media. 

Even making the most generous of assumptions, I put the value at around £2,500 per five-game weekly round. That's £250 per club per round - about 10 "pizza and a side" deals. 

You can try to solve this problem by "getting better salespeople" or you can try to solve it by addressing why RL sponsorship values are so low. I know which I think is more effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

When the deal was first announced I actually did the numbers on the value of what SL was offering Papa John's, when you consider the rack-rate for that sort of pitch side advertising and the typical CPM of the highlights videos they were sponsoring. No agenda - just based on my experience of buying ad media. 

Even making the most generous of assumptions, I put the value at around £2,500 per five-game weekly round. That's £250 per club per round - about 10 "pizza and a side" deals. 

You can try to solve this problem by "getting better salespeople" or you can try to solve it by addressing why RL sponsorship values are so low. I know which I think is more effective.

Sorry I appreciate you clearly have more experience in these matters but £500 for an advertisement pitchside for a game shown on TV? Is that the going rate, and I guess a further question is that the going rate for say a sport/league that gets our level of viewing figures?

Also Papa Johns don't pay £25 for one of their own pizzas and sides so I don't think that calculation quite works but I see the point you're making.

Edited by DI Keith Fowler

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Sorry I appreciate you clearly have more experience in these matters but £500 for an advertisement pitchside for a game shown on TV? Is that the going rate, and I guess a further question is that the going rate for say a sport/league that gets our level of viewing figures?

Also Papa Johns don't pay £25 for one of their own pizzas and sides so I don't think that calculation quite works but I see the point you're making.

These were the rough numbers I did at the time, based on the hoarding price at one SL club and some general internet metrics. It turns out that £2,500 was over-stating my original maths.  

Pitchside advertising, and outdoor media in general, is cheaper than many people think - largely because it is such a passive and restrictive form of media. You'd probably be suprised how little it cost to advertise in somewhere like Piccadilly Circus, for example - especially now when the cost of media has fallen. 

So is the £200 per game charged by St Helens fair and accurate? I would say so. RL coverage has a number of issues that keep the price down - it doesn't have huge reach in terms of viewing figures that an advertiser couldn't replicate through other mediums as easily, the audience demographics are a factor and, perhaps an issue that isn't considered as much, is the "dwell time" of the camera on shots where the hoardings are visible. Compare to football, where the camera dwells on a wide shot for a long period, RL TV coverage involves a high volume of close-in shots where the boards can't be seen.  

What Papa John's pay for their pizzas also doesn't come into it when calculating the value. What matters is what the league / clubs would have to pay for something of equal value. The Super League clubs don't feed their players for the same wholesale cost as a PJ pizza - they're paying the retail cost from whoever the supplier happens to be, so that is the value of the contract. 

 

 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cookey said:

I agree to a certain extent and frankly I'm trying to think of the angle. PE would be putting up a capital sum,however low,so they MUST have a guaranteed return. Revenue comes from tv deals,sponsorship and gate/match day income. Can they negociate a better tv deal that SL. Possibly but I doubt it. Can they attract better,more valuable sponsors.Possibly but again I doubt it. Can they increase match day revenue,no.

Initially they will take their percentage of SL revenue. How Clubs think they can survive on reduced annual income is beyond me. Surely the few clubs with assets cant be putting these up as surety? Forcing a merger of league and union is no guarantee of success and frankly,would probably fail.Unless I'm missing something,I genuinely think a few owners are selling the game,simply to recoup their loans and somehow PE get their hands on tv/sponsorship money or other assets(undefined) One can't imagine PE would go into this,with a view of killing the game but that would appear to be the outcome from the reporting I've read. Most things seem to come back to Elstones intentions. I can only hope I'm missing something.

Makes sense, current SL Club owners can take their money back out of their Clubs, claw back their loans / investments.

PE / Clubs just need to put on a final show (3 to 5 Seasons) to pull the money out of the next TV Contract.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...