Jump to content

Elstone talks TV deal, Private Equity and next season (ish)


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Im not, in principle, against PE. It has its place. 

But the rumoured idea that its between 50 and 75m for central investment, in exchange for around 50% of the competition doesnt make much sense.

Its not a huge sum, it really doesnt seem the best way of making those investments. 

Why does that not make sense?  You don't seriously think that all of SL together is worth more than 150 million £ do you?  Even that figure is probably much too high — it would make the average value of the clubs 12.5 million £ and I doubt that any of them are worth anything close to that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


57 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Why does that not make sense?  You don't seriously think that all of SL together is worth more than 150 million £ do you?  Even that figure is probably much too high — it would make the average value of the clubs 12.5 million £ and I doubt that any of them are worth anything close to that much.

How much would you sell your Euro/world league franchises for ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

How much would you sell your Euro/world league franchises for ? 

A fee which would meet the seven criteria which I have so far identified that it would need to meet to be legitimate for a ground floor opportunity in the major league pro sports business with a transatlantic, intercontinental and multinational reach unique among the world's major pro leagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Picture said:

A fee which would meet the seven criteria which I have so far identified that it would need to meet to be legitimate for a ground floor opportunity in the major league pro sports business with a transatlantic, intercontinental and multinational reach unique among the world's major pro leagues.

How much ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

A fee which would meet the seven criteria which I have so far identified that it would need to meet to be legitimate for a ground floor opportunity in the major league pro sports business with a transatlantic, intercontinental and multinational reach unique among the world's major pro leagues.

They aren’t buying the clubs so their value is irrelevant. They are buying a cut of the leagues earning power so SLs TV and sponsorships  deals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

They aren’t buying the clubs so their value is irrelevant. They are buying a cut of the leagues earning power so SLs TV and sponsorships  deals. 

The value of both the clubs and the league is a function of their revenue and profit, just as that of any other business is.  The league's revenues from TV rights and sponsorship are a function of how attractive its member clubs are to audiences, so fundamentally it's based on the values of the clubs which consequently are very relevant.

2 hours ago, del capo said:

And the effective control of the future direction of the top tier of our game...........

Which needs the money because of its failure to attract new audiences during the 25 years since the move to summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Why does that not make sense?  You don't seriously think that all of SL together is worth more than 150 million £ do you?  Even that figure is probably much too high — it would make the average value of the clubs 12.5 million £ and I doubt that any of them are worth anything close to that much.

It wouldn't make the average value of the clubs anything.

They would be investing in SL, a company with large revenues and little costs. Not clubs.

If PE buys 50% of SL, even if the TV deal for the next 5 years was 15-20% less than last time. They would be buying a company with revenues around £150m. Which would mean they could get their investment back in around 5 years and then still own 50% of the games revenue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

It wouldn't make the average value of the clubs anything.

They would be investing in SL, a company with large revenues and little costs. Not clubs.

If PE buys 50% of SL, even if the TV deal for the next 5 years was 15-20% less than last time. They would be buying a company with revenues around £150m. Which would mean they could get their investment back in around 5 years and then still own 50% of the games revenue. 

At that rate I have another business word for it LOAN SHARKING:(

NO THANKS 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scotchy1 said:

It wouldn't make the average value of the clubs anything.

They would be investing in SL, a company with large revenues and little costs. Not clubs.

If PE buys 50% of SL, even if the TV deal for the next 5 years was 15-20% less than last time. They would be buying a company with revenues around £150m. Which would mean they could get their investment back in around 5 years and then still own 50% of the games revenue. 

They would not get 50% of revenue.  What ever share they would get would (if the RU Premiership is a guide) would be after or above a certain level of revenue.

Its worth pointing out that CVC (who manage US$82 billion) took a 28% stake in Guinness Pro 14, as well as 27% stake in Premiership Rugby.     They are looking at taking a £300 million stake in Six Nations.   As I understand it CVC have also taken a 15% interest in Italian Serie A.

But the flat earthers here (as well as the flat cappers) don't seem to realise whats going on under their noses.  If we are not careful all we will be left with is clogs, whippets and, well... tripe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

They would not get 50% of revenue.  What ever share they would get would (if the RU Premiership is a guide) would be after or above a certain level of revenue.

Its worth pointing out that CVC (who manage US$82 billion) took a 28% stake in Guinness Pro 14, as well as 27% stake in Premiership Rugby.     They are looking at taking a £300 million stake in Six Nations.   As I understand it CVC have also taken a 15% interest in Italian Serie A.

But the flat earthers here (as well as the flat cappers) don't seem to realise whats going on under their noses.  If we are not careful all we will be left with is clogs, whippets and, well... tripe.

Just because other people are doing it doesn't mean RL should be. They're doing it because of the sweet smell of the money in the short term, not for any other reason. It isn't going to make RU bigger or more popular.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

They would not get 50% of revenue.  What ever share they would get would (if the RU Premiership is a guide) would be after or above a certain level of revenue.

Its worth pointing out that CVC (who manage US$82 billion) took a 28% stake in Guinness Pro 14, as well as 27% stake in Premiership Rugby.     They are looking at taking a £300 million stake in Six Nations.   As I understand it CVC have also taken a 15% interest in Italian Serie A.

But the flat earthers here (as well as the flat cappers) don't seem to realise whats going on under their noses.  If we are not careful all we will be left with is clogs, whippets and, well... tripe.

The rumour is £50m for 50%. 

As I said I'm not against it in principle. If done right it could be beneficial for the game. For example the international game is absolutely ripe for PE investment. 

I'm also not against Central investment. I think it is right.

But my question is, for such a relatively small sum, if we are confident in these investments, wouldn't we be much better getting loans or making that investment from within the game?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From today's Daily Mail sports agenda

Quote

Sky bring big rugby league kick-off forward 

Sky Sports’ huge influence over rugby league can be seen in the start date for the 2021 Super League season, confirmed last week as March 11.

Super League clubs had wanted to begin two weeks later to give players more time to recover from the marathon 2020 season, which only finished on Friday with the Grand Final, but Sky persuaded the board to bring the big kick-off forward.

The broadcaster was eager to have access to Super League games before football’s first international break of the year, which runs from March 22 to 30.

Sky’s Super League contract expires at the end of next season but, as Sportsmail revealed last week, they are close to agreeing another three-year deal

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8999057/SPORTS-AGENDA-Michael-Duberry-opens-Leeds-infamous-nightclub-scandal.html

TV rights not a done deal then

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
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make no apology for saying this.

But where does this leave Championship and Championship 1 clubs?

Will they be able to find a partner,or partners along with possible streaming of their own games on a PPV basis to get either the same amount of money they currently get from central funding or preferably more money?

And I see nothing so far has been suggested or talked about openly.

Anyone here got any clue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

From today's Daily Mail sports agenda

Quote

Sky bring big rugby league kick-off forward 

Sky Sports’ huge influence over rugby league can be seen in the start date for the 2021 Super League season, confirmed last week as March 11.

Super League clubs had wanted to begin two weeks later to give players more time to recover from the marathon 2020 season, which only finished on Friday with the Grand Final, but Sky persuaded the board to bring the big kick-off forward.

The broadcaster was eager to have access to Super League games before football’s first international break of the year, which runs from March 22 to 30.

Sky’s Super League contract expires at the end of next season but, as Sportsmail revealed last week, they are close to agreeing another three-year deal

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8999057/SPORTS-AGENDA-Michael-Duberry-opens-Leeds-infamous-nightclub-scandal.html

TV rights not a done deal then

Again - if this is fact not fiction bearing in mind the source - a reminder that we are of more value to Sky than many would lead you to believe.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally got around to watching the Super League final. Must say the commercial side of this was very underwhelming- Betfred, Dacia (only bright spot), Mushi Peas, Northern Rail, Papa Johns. If Elstone was brought in for commercial reasons, he has clearly failed. Compared to the NRL/Origin- the likes of Ampol, Hisense, KFC, Hankook, Coke, Rexona, Schick etc

Also apart from crowds not allowed into most sports, the majority of sports TV audiences I think have not suffered, and there is talk around a number of TV deals that contracts are not reducing as envisaged. So Super League should not  be taking a backward step in terms of income reduction.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/11/2020 at 00:02, bobbruce said:

They aren’t buying the clubs so their value is irrelevant. They are buying a cut of the leagues earning power so SLs TV and sponsorships  deals. 

If private equity happens, in 20 years time, when we’re still handing over a big chunk of our tv deal and sponsorship money to the private equity firm, people will be regretting and questioning why we went down the private equity agreement route. Like taking out a pay day loan, it’s such a short sighted decision that will cost you money in the long run, avoid at all costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heritage XIII said:

Finally got around to watching the Super League final. Must say the commercial side of this was very underwhelming- Betfred, Dacia (only bright spot), Mushi Peas, Northern Rail, Papa Johns. If Elstone was brought in for commercial reasons, he has clearly failed. Compared to the NRL/Origin- the likes of Ampol, Hisense, KFC, Hankook, Coke, Rexona, Schick etc

 

 

The worst thing about this is that papa johns is a cashless deal. We are paying Elstone millions to come up with deals such as free pizza for Super League sponsorship. It’s unbelievable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If private equity happens, in 20 years time, when we’re still handing over a big chunk of our tv deal and sponsorship money to the private equity firm, people will be regretting and questioning why we went down the private equity agreement route. Like taking out a pay day loan, it’s such a short sighted decision that will cost you money in the long run, avoid at all costs.

The PE does not take a chunk out of the TV deal.  It takes a percent over and above a set amount.  As per the RU Premiership deal.

If it is such a bad idea why have Serie A done a deal?  CVC are talking to Bundeslega and La Lega.   

The game is going to die and die soon, unless we do something.  

You never know, the odd occasional RL half awake journalist might wake up and smell the coffee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

The rumour is £50m for 50%. 

As I said I'm not against it in principle. If done right it could be beneficial for the game. For example the international game is absolutely ripe for PE investment. 

I'm also not against Central investment. I think it is right.

But my question is, for such a relatively small sum, if we are confident in these investments, wouldn't we be much better getting loans or making that investment from within the game?

You have invented a figure, based on a non existent deal and then produced a fanciful scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

The PE does not take a chunk out of the TV deal.  It takes a percent over and above a set amount.  As per the RU Premiership deal.

If it is such a bad idea why have Serie A done a deal?  CVC are talking to Bundeslega and La Lega.   

The game is going to die and die soon, unless we do something.  

You never know, the odd occasional RL half awake journalist might wake up and smell the coffee.

Serie A are very cash poor and bar Juventus have struggled to cope with the explosion in particularly English and also Spanish revenues or the dominance of Bayern/PSG. In fact they've regressed backwards to the latter two to being a 1 trick pony with Juventus.

Serie A is actually an interesting comparison for SL/Rugby League. 7/8 significantly larger teams with a handful of challenging provincial sides (as a percentage they're roughly the same as SL's big 6 etc). The cash poorness meaning many teams play out of substandard stadiums. They've also fallen behind their competitors and are seeking the investment to reclaim the glory days of the 90s and early 2000s.

Due to general German attitudes towards financial investment in football I doubt they'd give it much thought.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

You have invented a figure, based on a non existent deal and then produced a fanciful scenario. 

No i havent. https://www.totalrl.com/talking-rugby-league-is-private-equity-right-for-super-league/

Im not sure why you have taken such offence at this. As i said, im not against it in principle. Im just unconvinced that such a small amount requires us selling the family silver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Serie A are very cash poor and bar Juventus have struggled to cope with the explosion in particularly English and also Spanish revenues or the dominance of Bayern/PSG. In fact they've regressed backwards to the latter two to being a 1 trick pony with Juventus.

Serie A is actually an interesting comparison for SL/Rugby League. 7/8 significantly larger teams with a handful of challenging provincial sides (as a percentage they're roughly the same as SL's big 6 etc). The cash poorness meaning many teams play out of substandard stadiums. They've also fallen behind their competitors and are seeking the investment to reclaim the glory days of the 90s and early 2000s.

Due to general German attitudes towards financial investment in football I doubt they'd give it much thought.

What general attitude is that?  They need the money, their tv rights have declined I believe. 

But none of all that you say changes the point.  We need investment and we need A PE partner to help us drive revenues.  The real question is not do we stick our heads in the sand but which partner is best for us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...