How much would Super League be valued at?

[The Hallucinating Goose]

I've got a money box with a few coppers in it. 

[Pulga]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

2k fans for a lower division club is a reasonable criteria. Set that much higher and literally nobody can apply. 

I suggest you go and find a bigger sport to watch if the size of RL is such an issue for you. 

NFL play in big grounds if that is your bag. 

 

I watch a much bigger version of the very same sport all the time.

Qualifying it by calling them 'lower division' points out the problem of P&R. 

It's clearly not working when, even in a regular, non-COVID season, a team like the Wolfpack could be out and replaced with basically any of those that are now vying for that 12th spot. 

On what planet is that good for the game? For me the only saving grace is that Toulouse and London aren't located within ####### distance of another club.

[The Future is League]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Gingerjon beat me to it, but this is just nonsense. 

I remember when Brisbane Broncos bought out London Broncos (sort of), and even Branson had a go. 

Everyone used to slate Wood and celebrated Elstone taking over, now he made an unpopular decision and he is wrong. 

V'landys would probably do little different. 

Peter V'landys doesn't suffer fools or inept people.

Look how quickly he moved Todd Greenberg sideways then out the door

Look what he has done for horse racing in NSW.

[nadera78]

2 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

nadera - my mistake. CVC's current investment in RU is £720 Million. The point is they are making that because of the growth opportunities.  

The idea that RL clubs would get less income if they sold off half the sport is daft because the whole idea from the VC perspective is to make huge gains in value for the game as a whole. Imagine a CVC negotiating with Sky instead of the current numpties. Of course they'd take a cut for doing that, but no serious VC investor would really be interested in RL unless they could control the game and grow it big time.

That's the idea, yes, but how likely is it? Just to put the figures into context, the rumour re SL investors was a £50m payment for a 51% stake and a 30% cut of the central revenue. Each SL club currently receives £1.8m p/a (i.e. £21.6m in total) from SLE. If the investors take 30% of that, each club receives £540,000 less each and every season. In order to stand still, the new investors would have to increase central revenue by £6.48m a year. Do you think that's likely?

As it stands, everyone seems convinced we'll shortly be signing a broadcast deal with SKY for less than we currently receive. SL's current naming rights sponsorship with Betfred is worth around £2m. Where exactly do you see these investors raising £6.48m pa in new income? What properties do they have to sell, and in what markets, that will bring in that revenue?

So, yeah, I do think the clubs will have less income. A substantial amount too.

[Damien]

The £50 million figure for a 51% stake just seems nonsense to me and I would seriously consider following this great game if we sell out to PE. It is such a low figure that it is pretty pointless and will cripple the game going forward. Clubs are struggling with getting 100% income as is.

Christ 50,000 fans paying £1000 could raise £50 million if we really need to go down this kind of route.

[nadera78]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

The £50 million figure for a 51% stake just seems nonsense to me and I would seriously consider following this great game if we sell out to PE. It is such a low figure that it is pretty pointless and will cripple the game going forward. Clubs are struggling with getting 100% income as is.

Christ 50,000 fans paying £1000 could raise £50 million if we really need to go down this kind of route.

To be clear, the private equity route is not one I would support either. Regardless of the figures involved.

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Damien said:

 

Christ 50,000 fans paying £1000 could raise £50 million if we really need to go down this kind of route.

Other than just demonstrating basic maths, I'm not sure what point you are making here mate. 

[Hela Wigmen]

20 minutes ago, Damien said:

 

Christ 50,000 fans paying £1000 could raise £50 million if we really need to go down this kind of route.

Could you imagine the infighting and self interest if that was ever to happen 

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Other than just demonstrating basic maths, I'm not sure what point you are making here mate. 

That 50 million as a 1 off is actually not a huge sum for a controlling interest in the sport and 51% of future revenues.

[Dave T]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

That 50 million as a 1 off is actually not a huge sum for a controlling interest in the sport.

I'd agree, but would depend on any terms agreed.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

That 50 million as a 1 off is actually not a huge sum for a controlling interest in the sport and 51% of future revenues.

Thanks Tommy, I thought it was fairly obvious!

[Clogiron]

9 hours ago, Pulga said:

After seeing the pitiful criteria set for the 12th team to join SL I was wondering how much it would cost someone (in my imagination it would be the NRL) to buy out the SL.

How much have you found down the back of the sofa?

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'd agree, but would depend on any terms agreed.

Unless it was for a significantly smaller share of future revenues than the level of ownership, it wouldn't even make sense for the big clubs we have.

[Damien]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Unless it was for a significantly smaller share of future revenues than the level of ownership, it wouldn't even make sense for the big clubs we have.

It would literally make more sense for clubs, particularly the bigger clubs, to buy a share of Super League to raise income. £5 million gets you a share, a seat at the table and an increased share of TV funding going forward. You could even have licensing and have immunity from relegation or in the event of relegation the club keeps their SL level funding. If clubs don't pay they get reduced funding. Lets face it with a 51% share any PE company will introduce all of the things that some people don't want, like licensing etc, anyway.

[Converted Northerner]

Question, and I suppose it would depend on any terms of an agreement. But how would private equity investment affect the promotion and relegation scene? 

Assuming the current 12 clubs sell their share for £xx millions - they cash in. Does that leave the Championship sides out in the cold and on the back foot when it comes promotion to SL? Or would it be down to SLE to control the distribution of funds?

 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Converted Northerner said:

Question, and I suppose it would depend on any terms of an agreement. But how would private equity investment affect the promotion and relegation scene? 

Assuming the current 12 clubs sell their share for £xx millions - they cash in. Does that leave the Championship sides out in the cold and on the back foot when it comes promotion to SL? Or would it be down to SLE to control the distribution of funds?

 

If a PE company control 51% they could literally do as they please.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Unless it was for a significantly smaller share of future revenues than the level of ownership, it wouldn't even make sense for the big clubs we have.

As I say, it purely depends on each deal - what they would bring to the table, and what the commercial terms are. We need to be careful either way - don't sell ourselves short, and also if PE's put a huge sum in then they will want a huge amount of control.

It's all risky!

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

It would literally make more sense for clubs, particularly the bigger clubs, to buy a share of Super League to raise income. £5 million gets you a share, a seat at the table and an increased share of TV funding going forward. You could even have licensing and have immunity from relegation or in the event of relegation the club keeps their SL level funding. If clubs don't pay they get reduced funding. Lets face it with a 51% share any PE company will introduce all of the things that some people don't want, like licensing etc, anyway.

Exactly. Wakefield, Cas out, Hull KR maybe survive on the derby, Wigan play half their games in Manchester, Saints and Wire the same in Liverpool, London and Newcastle up supported by extra money. And thats best case scenario.

Worst is that they do nothing and the game has to find the cash to buy them back out again

[The Rocket]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Gingerjon beat me to it, but this is just nonsense. 

I remember when Brisbane Broncos bought out London Broncos (sort of), and even Branson had a go. 

Everyone used to slate Wood and celebrated Elstone taking over, now he made an unpopular decision and he is wrong. 

V'landys would probably do little different. 

Yeah you`re probably right, V`landy`s wouldn`t touch it with a barge pole and neither will any private equity firm. Just too many vested interests and it would be impossible to achieve anything. If fans over there really loved the game above club loyalties they would accept mergers and move on, think Wests/Tigers, form alliances with clubs in expansion areas and share their identity or even realise that their future is only in the lower Leagues and stop having poxy half-ar$ed team pushing for Super League entry. Think Newtown, Bears.

Something better happen soon because as we retreat to the heartlands the broadcast money may soon dry up and then there will be absolutely nothing to grow the game with.

[Oxford]

9 hours ago, Pulga said:

After seeing the pitiful criteria set for the 12th team to join SL I was wondering how much it would cost someone (in my imagination it would be the NRL) to buy out the SL.

This Pulga, he's a stepper!

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Yeah you`re probably right, V`landy`s wouldn`t touch it with a barge pole and neither will any private equity firm. Just too many vested interests and it would be impossible to achieve anything. If fans over there really loved the game above club loyalties they would accept mergers and move on, think Wests/Tigers, form alliances with clubs in expansion areas and share their identity or even realise that their future is only in the lower Leagues and stop having poxy half-ar$ed team pushing for Super League entry. Think Newtown, Bears.

Something better happen soon because as we retreat to the heartlands the broadcast money may soon dry up and then there will be absolutely nothing to grow the game with.

Why do you think people should love the game over their clubs? It's a romanticised view. 

People in Warrington aren't RL fans because they just so happen to like the sport. Same in Wigan, or Bradford. It's the same reason why people in Leicester don't follow RL in the same numbers. 

The vast majority of fans fall in love with a club rather than the game. I'm not sure why that is seen as a bad thing.

The international game is where you will attract a larger proportion of people who can coldly make business decisions about the 'game'.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Why do you think people should love the game over their clubs? It's a romanticised view. 

People in Warrington aren't RL fans because they just so happen to like the sport. Same in Wigan, or Bradford. It's the same reason why people in Leicester don't follow RL in the same numbers. 

The vast majority of fans fall in love with a club rather than the game. I'm not sure why that is seen as a bad thing.

The international game is where you will attract a larger proportion of people who can coldly make business decisions about the 'game'.

I don't know about that Dave. It depends on the setting. Plenty of RL fans are involved/interested in the game outside and beyond their own club - though obviously plenty are not. Plenty will display different attitudes regarding their kids amateur club vs their pro club

 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't know about that Dave. It depends on the setting. Plenty of RL fans are involved/interested in the game outside and beyond their own club - though obviously plenty are not. Plenty will display different attitudes regarding their kids amateur club vs their pro club

 

I agree, but I will still support my view of it being a vast majority being fans of clubs first. And as this is a SL discussion, I would absolutely back my claim that the fans of SL prioritise their club.

It isn't anything to be ashamed of, and it isn't unusual, it's just something that needs to be factored in.

[Rupert Prince]

8 hours ago, nadera78 said:

No, they haven't. They paid £120million for a 28% stake in Premiership Rugby. And they'll be taking 28% of the centrally generated revenue going forward, meaning the clubs - who already lose millions each year - will all be receiving much less income. The clubs have largely used the money to pay off some debts to owners, but they'll have to increase income enormously just to remain in their current position.

To answer the OP, the rumour on this board earlier this week was that a private equity firm had offered £50m for a 51% stake in SLE. If true that would value SLE at around £100million. But, again, the clubs would see reduced income in future years.

Centrally generated.    ie.  TV money? The intention to improve that and expand its popularity. I've read 200 million for 27%.

You say it's just going to debts, but is it?  It might help servics any debts,  but it can unterpin RU growth and CVT has intentions to grow global rugby. In terms of Billions, they have a 15 billion fund.

Unless we the RL do something similar, we will die.

[Pulga]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Why do you think people should love the game over their clubs? It's a romanticised view. 

People in Warrington aren't RL fans because they just so happen to like the sport. Same in Wigan, or Bradford. It's the same reason why people in Leicester don't follow RL in the same numbers. 

The vast majority of fans fall in love with a club rather than the game. I'm not sure why that is seen as a bad thing.

The international game is where you will attract a larger proportion of people who can coldly make business decisions about the 'game'.

And that will be the downfall of the game in England. I watch the game because of what it is. I don't particularly care for teams. I have ones I prefer above others but I'd watch my two most hated clubs play every day of the week.

The weird 1800's folk game attitude of England isn't relevant today. You need to adapt to a more global brand or die.