Super League clubs reject private equity proposal

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

I’m glad Super League clubs haven’t gone down the private equity route, it would be very costly in the long term. But this was Elstone’s pet project, it’s another failure against his name. 

[Davo5]

750k Introduction fee !! Which clown agreed to that.

[Rupert Prince]

11 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

It was a bad deal that looked somewhat predatory by vultures. 750k fee for no deal though, ouch! 

At the end of the story it says Sky is offering closer to £30m/yr not £20m for Super League TV rights. Why is that buried down there, not a story in its own right?!

Correct.  The 30 million, if it's true and if it's just for SL will soften the blow.

However, without further income then frankly any expansion or higher profile of the game is stunted.   He game remains a backwater.

But if the 30 million is true then the 12 SL clubs will be relieved.  However just how do any of the perspective Championship clubs hope to aspire to be strong enough to compete at a higher level?

Is it possible that with 30 million the SL competition could increase to 14?

[cookey]

Will Elstone be repaying the £750,000 fee out of his salary for something I could have told him for a fiver. Truely a shocking use of very limited funds.

[Rupert Prince]

11 hours ago, Damien said:

A lot? Surely its all as its the whole reason behind their existence!

If it is such a bad idea, then why do they exist?  Why do companies take the investment.  If there is a better clever option, why is it that the banks don't lend the money?

[The Future is League]

20 minutes ago, cookey said:

Will Elstone be repaying the £750,000 fee out of his salary for something I could have told him for a fiver. Truely a shocking use of very limited funds.

The worry part for me was that Elstone thought the Private equity deal was a good deal for the clubs and was in favour of it.

Robert Elstone certainly doesn't inspire me with confidence.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, The Future is League said:

The worry part for me was that Elstone thought the Private equity deal was a good deal for the clubs and was in favour of it.

Robert Elstone certainly doesn't inspire me with confidence.

TBF it seems like around half the clubs agreed with him. What I would like to know is who those clubs are and their reasoning. Presumably some are attracted by the large financial investment given their current struggles, but I doubt that will be the only reason.

£750k is a lot for rugby league, but is par for the course in the world they were trying to gain access to.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

I cannot believe Robert Elstone has wasted £750,000 on this, on top of his massive salary for doing absolutely nothing for the game. The sooner he’s out of running Super League the better. Do clubs really have money to burn right now? 

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I cannot believe Robert Elstone has wasted £750,000 on this, on top of his massive salary for doing absolutely nothing for the game. The sooner he’s out of running Super League the better. Do clubs really have money to burn right now? 

It would appear, from that article at least, that around half the clubs were backing the private equity investment, so while it’s a lot of money to a sport like Rugby League, it wasn’t unanimous, so can’t really be deemed a “waste”. 

[Spidey]

I assume SL Clubs are footing the 750k bill from their central allocations?

[Dave T]

13 hours ago, Damien said:

Its great news about the TV deal too, if true, as it is broadly in line with what the game gets now and would be far from a disaster.

If we could get £30m a year from Sky but for less (no lower leagues, maybe even lack of exclusivity, no digital rights) then it could all turn out to be decent - IF we can monetise those things we retain. Even if we can't monetise them now we could at least commence that process rather than Sky sitting on them and doing very little with them.

[cookey]

So half the SL clubs rejected the PE idea/offer.

Why not ask all 12 SL clubs what is the minimum PE offer they would be prepared to consider/accept BEFORE approaching J Rothschild. Then say to them, if you can secure this minimum offer,we are prepared to pay an introductory fee of £750,000.

Just a way of saving £750,000,then again,I'm not paid £400,000/yr to run SL.

[The Daddy]

Can someone please change the title of this thread to:

'SL clubs flush 750k down the drain' 

 

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

A lot of these private equity firms are only interested in one thing.Money.

They could not give a rats ass about anything else.
They should be steered well clear from.

For what other reason do you think they are in BUISNESS Rob, their sole purpose in life is to make money.

[DI Keith Fowler]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If we could get £30m a year from Sky but for less (no lower leagues, maybe even lack of exclusivity, no digital rights) then it could all turn out to be decent - IF we can monetise those things we retain. Even if we can't monetise them now we could at least commence that process rather than Sky sitting on them and doing very little with them.

I'm curious as to how that £30 million would be split, previously it was £40 million split between the SL clubs, RFL and Championship.

I'd also be interested to know what's changed from prior to Christmas where £20 million seemed likely, have we bundled some extra stuff in to get to that number? Promised to expand to 14 again? Or did we actually get a sniff of interest from BT?

 

[M j M]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

If it is such a bad idea, then why do they exist?  Why do companies take the investment.  If there is a better clever option, why is it that the banks don't lend the money?

They usually buy companies, or controlling interests in companies. Then plough some money in and take strategic decisions which will boost short-term profits to make them look great. And after three or four years they sell them on for a profit.

The SL deal wasn't even that - the clubs remained in control and these guys just gouged their money back in very short order. It was a bad concept and a bad deal and the idea that we've wasted £750k on this when, at the very least, Hetherington and McManus were always going to reject it out of hand is mind-boggling.

[M j M]

3 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I'm curious as to how that £30 million would be split, previously it was £40 million split between the SL clubs, RFL and Championship.

I'd also be interested to know what's changed from prior to Christmas where £20 million seemed likely, have we bundled some extra stuff in to get to that number? Promised to expand to 14 again? Or did we actually get a sniff of interest from BT?

 

The ratchet agreed with the Championship clubs mean that, effectively, at that level the SL clubs keep it all and the lower leagues get nothing.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

11 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Can someone please change the title of this thread to:

'SL clubs flush 750k down the drain' 

 

Robert Elstone flushes £750k of Super League club’s money down the drain, on top of his £400k salary.

[Oxford]

All very sensible if the market is in a downward spiral, or as my Gran used to say "That's sh*t with sugar on !"

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, cookey said:

Will Elstone be repaying the £750,000 fee out of his salary for something I could have told him for a fiver. Truely a shocking use of very limited funds.

something I could have told him for a fiver

Why didn't you? Chance missed?

 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I'm curious as to how that £30 million would be split, previously it was £40 million split between the SL clubs, RFL and Championship.

I'd also be interested to know what's changed from prior to Christmas where £20 million seemed likely, have we bundled some extra stuff in to get to that number? Promised to expand to 14 again? Or did we actually get a sniff of interest from BT?

 

TBH there was an aritcle saying £30m a while back. Then one popped up saying £20m, now we are back discussing £30m. 

Who knows what the actual reality is?

[M j M]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

TBH there was an aritcle saying £30m a while back. Then one popped up saying £20m, now we are back discussing £30m. 

Who knows what the actual reality is?

Sounds like League Express are using an anonymous source. But we know how much Martyn hates them so dismissing it out of hand is really the only thing we can do. 

[cookey]

23 minutes ago, JohnM said:

something I could have told him for a fiver

Why didn't you? Chance missed?

 

Thanks,actually I did,if you care to look at the original thread on PE. No doubt the fiver is in the post.

[The Daddy]

3 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I’m glad Super League clubs haven’t gone down the private equity route, it would be very costly in the long term. But this was Elstone’s pet project, it’s another failure against his name. 

Yep, notch that one up with his French TV deal project that ended up with SL getting no coverage in France

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

If we could get £30m a year from Sky but for less (no lower leagues, maybe even lack of exclusivity, no digital rights) then it could all turn out to be decent - IF we can monetise those things we retain. Even if we can't monetise them now we could at least commence that process rather than Sky sitting on them and doing very little with them.

If is the big question. I cant say I am that confident but like you say its better having those rights and the chance to do something with them than not.