Jump to content

Private Equity, What would you spend it on?


Recommended Posts


2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So you get a return in 40 years time ?

 

Its a long term plan sure but that is where the game grows.... You ain't converting many adults who have never played or watched league before in my view

Not sure where you get 40 years from

If you inspire and enthuse say 9-14 year olds then you have parents who will help them watch games /buy tickets /buy merch....give it 5-10 years many may be doing it themselves.... Hopefully for many years to come

More kids playing also equals a very quick return on new players.... Get an athletic kid at 10 and he can be in SL in 8 years.... I believe LMS had never played rugby until he was 16....he played in SL what 3/4 years later.... Development can be rapid

This can be both genders and away from heartland areas too

Most of us on this forum are 40+ males I suspect.... Probably most from the heartlands.... A shrinking market

Short term ism = long term decline

Edited by Bedfordshire Bronco
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

A 6000 capacity 3g stadium in Wrexham for North Wales Crusaders and a fully funded academy in South Wales .

That way,  Welsh players have a clear pathway from youth,  profesional RL and then regular internationals vs Eng and France in a tri - Four Nations tournament. 

A RL six nations style tournament is the only way you get a ROI and grow the game. 

Yep

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Its a long term plan sure but that is where the game grows.... You ain't converting many adults who have never played or watched league before in my view

Not sure where you get 40 years from

If you inspire and enthuse say 9-14 year olds then you have parents who will help them watch games /buy tickets /buy merch....give it 5-10 years many may be doing it themselves.... Hopefully for many years to come

More kids playing also equals a very quick return on new players.... Get an athletic kid at 10 and he can be in SL in 8 years.... I believe LMS had never played rugby until he was 16....he played in SL what 3/4 years later.... Development can be rapid

This can be both genders and away from heartland areas too

Most of us on this forum are 40+ males I suspect.... Probably most from the heartlands.... A shrinking market

Short term ism = long term decline

You can't borrow against a long term future that might or might not pay off , if they take PE they need to start to see some return within 2/3 years 

And there isn't necessarily a corellation between kids playing and paying 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GUBRATS said:

You can't borrow against a long term future that might or might not pay off , if they take PE they need to start to see some return within 2/3 years 

And there isn't necessarily a corellation between kids playing and paying 

Any talk of 2/3 year investing will kill the game long term 

I have huge amounts of personal experience that playing rugby of both codes at an early age means people still follow and plough money into the game. I can literally name dozens of people I played with in youth set up who still go to games and buy shirts etc

Not sure where your evidence of no correlation is from? It also defies common sense. The passion from playing as a kid (and adult) has to be the main driver for increasing interest across any sport

Link to post
Share on other sites

Development officers are great but we've seen what happens when the funding runs out, the game is left with nothing. Invest in assets that provide the game with revenues forever more and the game can fund development officers properly and not just on the whim of Sports England funding. Likewise buying assets in terms of facilities to grow proper strong roots and not be dependent on the whims of other sports. With decreased revenue percentage increasing revenue would be key.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Development officers are great but we've seen what happens when the funding runs out, the game is left with nothing. Invest in assets that provide the game with revenues forever more and the game can fund development officers properly and not just on the whim of Sports England funding. Likewise buying assets in terms of facilities to grow proper strong roots and not be dependent on the whims of other sports. With decreased revenue percentage increasing revenue would be key.

Agree that you need the infrastructure that you own. Unless teams like London or Newcastle are ringfenced you need the base first, then build your foundation of DO's.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

2. Wages for 2nd rate antipodeans to fill the first team squad to keep us in SL.

Sadly if the clubs get their way this is exactly how it will be spent, not just 2nd raters but also over the hill antipodeans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JohnM said:

Hmmm.  Don't agree.  Theyll have to grow the size of the pie to get any reasonable return

The terms of the deal that have been leaked suggest not. The Investors would take £7m each year, meaning they'd recoup their investment in less than 9 years. That's by doing no work whatsoever. 

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 years? Leaked, as you say, or stolen. Either way, 9 years doesn't sound very short term, does it. 

In any case, the objections seem to be about a philosophical rejection of PE in principle. 

This is worth a read. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-10-03/how-private-equity-works-and-took-over-everything

Edited by JohnM

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JohnM said:

9 years? Leaked, as you say, or stolen. Either way, 9 years doesn't sound very short term, does it. 

In any case, the objections seem to be about a philosophical rejection of PE in principle. 

This is worth a read. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-10-03/how-private-equity-works-and-took-over-everything

No the objections are because of what PE is, what is does and what it would mean for RL going forward. I don't think people's personal philosophies have much to do with it unless you are trying to get into a political debate.

The 9 years figure that Nadera quotes is obviously if a PE company doesn't do a thing and takes its TV money cut after giving £50 million in cash from its own pocket. PE doesnt work like that though. In reality a PE company would load up Super League with debt and put in little so that it gets much higher returns. A PE company could easily buy its stake in Super League for £50 million but only use £10 million of its own cash and load £40 million of debt onto Super League. Using Nadera's £7 million a year TV cut figure it could then bail after 5 years with a £25 million profit.

Edited by Damien
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Damien said:

No the objections are because of what PE is, what is does and what it would mean for RL going forward. I don't think people's personal philosophies have much to do with it unless you are trying to get into a political debate.

The 9 years figure that Nadera quotes is obviously if a PE company doesn't do a thing and takes its TV money cut after giving £50 million in cash from its own pocket. PE doesnt work like that though. In reality a PE company would load up Super League with debt and put in little so that it gets much higher returns. A PE company could easily buy its stake in Super League for £50 million but only use £10 million of its own cash and load £40 million of debt onto Super League. Using Nadera's £7 million a year TV cut figure it could then bail after 5 years with a £25 million profit.

The, possibly, good thing is that SL has no assets to strip, and nothing really to secure loans against.

Its only asset is the SL ip which is worthless without the clubs 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Damien said:

The 9 years figure that Nadera quotes is obviously if a PE company doesn't do a thing and takes its TV money cut after giving £50 million in cash from its own pocket. PE doesnt work like that though. In reality a PE company would load up Super League with debt and put in little so that it gets much higher returns. A PE company could easily buy its stake in Super League for £50 million but only use £10 million of its own cash and load £40 million of debt onto Super League. Using Nadera's £7 million a year TV cut figure it could then bail after 5 years with a £25 million profit.

Exactly,and with interest rates so low,why wouldn't they?

I know which side of the deal I'd rather be on.

Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...