Jump to content

Super League clubs reject private equity proposal


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

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

I am not naive.I know what their raison d’etre is.

£ and $ signs are the only things they see.They don’t see anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 ri

They're hoping the lower tier clubs won't notice 😉

Having seen this up close, it's often a load of ######. It would be even more ###### in Rugby League - the vast majority of so-called succesful businessmen who have come into the sport from outsi

38 minutes ago, Damien said:

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.

The big thing that keeps giving me hope (and ultimately the disappointment that inevitably follows) is what we see with the World Cup - the people we have in charge are not idiots (in the main) - they often know what they want and need to do - they just don't always have the money to do it. 

Things like OurLeague are actually quite decent based on the fact we probably haven't spent very much on it at all! But whether we can take that next step and deliver a real quality product that can make money is the million dollar question. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The big thing that keeps giving me hope (and ultimately the disappointment that inevitably follows) is what we see with the World Cup - the people we have in charge are not idiots (in the main) - they often know what they want and need to do - they just don't always have the money to do it. 

Things like OurLeague are actually quite decent based on the fact we probably haven't spent very much on it at all! But whether we can take that next step and deliver a real quality product that can make money is the million dollar question. 

The World Cup is indeed a biggie. In an ideal position we would be negotiating our next TV deal after the World Cup, hopefully on the back of a hugely successful tournament with great crowds. Unfortunately due to the imminent contract expiry this isn't possible.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

I am not naive.I know what their raison d’etre is.

£ and $ signs are the only things they see.They don’t see anything else.

Yes, contrary to popular belief Buisnesses are originated to produce proffits not jobs or charity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M j M said:

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. 

No, you misunderstand again, I'm afraid.

I don't believe in quoting anonymous sources, but I do glean information from them.

If we didn't use anonymous sources sometimes in Rugby League there would never be any news at all. But I don't invent quotes and claim that they are from someone wanting to remain anonymous.

As a matter of interest, part of Friday's meeting of Super League clubs was devoted to a discussion of how League Express (and particularly Matthew Shaw) could be prevented from finding out what had gone on at the meeting.

They failed again!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, you misunderstand again, I'm afraid.

I don't believe in quoting anonymous sources, but I do glean information from them.

If we didn't use anonymous sources sometimes in Rugby League there would never be any news at all. But I don't invent quotes and claim that they are from someone wanting to remain anonymous.

As a matter of interest, part of Friday's meeting of Super League clubs was devoted to a discussion of how League Express (and particularly Matthew Shaw) could be prevented from finding out what had gone on at the meeting.

They failed again!

mind you they could also be deliberately giving out false information - chuckle... how do you check/decide that what you think is accurate leaks is not misinformation... unless having named persons, how do we the readership know the accuracy of anything... chuckle

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, redjonn said:

mind you they could also be deliberately giving out false information - chuckle... how do you check/decide that what you think is accurate leaks is not misinformation... unless having named persons, how do we the readership know the accuracy of anything... chuckle

Good point, but a journalist learns to trust sources by information proving to have been correct.

If sources gave false information, they wouldn't be sources for very long.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Good to see its been thrown out however I question why SL has to pay a 750K introduction fee normally this should be based on acceptance ?

Absolutely Paul, that is truly staggering incompetence.

My company works with 'brokers' for deals, including M&A, and the bulk of any fee would be % success. There maybe milestone payments but nothing like an 'introductory fee'. Unbelievable, they've had their pants well and truly pulled down

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

Good point, but a journalist learns to trust sources by information proving to have been correct.

If sources gave false information, they wouldn't be sources for very long.

yep... I was just being tongue-in-cheek... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, you misunderstand again, I'm afraid.

I don't believe in quoting anonymous sources, but I do glean information from them.

If we didn't use anonymous sources sometimes in Rugby League there would never be any news at all. But I don't invent quotes and claim that they are from someone wanting to remain anonymous.

As a matter of interest, part of Friday's meeting of Super League clubs was devoted to a discussion of how League Express (and particularly Matthew Shaw) could be prevented from finding out what had gone on at the meeting.

They failed again!

Gotcha.

Anonymous sources quoted by you should be trusted. Anonymous sources quoted by others saying things you don't like are invented by the reporter.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, redjonn said:

yep... I was just being tongue-in-cheek... 

It may have been tongue in cheek, but it was a very valid point.

What journalists have to beware of is the agenda of the source giving the information.

That's why I make the point about trusting your sources.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Absolutely Paul, that is truly staggering incompetence.

My company works with 'brokers' for deals, including M&A, and the bulk of any fee would be % success. There maybe milestone payments but nothing like an 'introductory fee'. Unbelievable, they've had their pants well and truly pulled down

would it not depend whom initiated and/or whom pulled out. That is if the initiator pulled out before advancing beyond a certain point

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, M j M said:

Gotcha.

Anonymous sources quoted by you should be trusted. Anonymous sources quoted by others saying things you don't like are invented by the reporter.

Crikey, I've just said that I don't quote anonymous sources and you've misquoted me again.

You really are hard work sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Crikey, I've just said that I don't quote anonymous sources and you've misquoted me again.

You really are hard work sometimes.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way but distinguishing between quoting anonymous sources and reporting what anonymous sources tell you is a line so marginal as to be almost irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, redjonn said:

would it not depend whom initiated and/or whom pulled out. That is if the initiator pulled out before advancing beyond a certain point

Not at such an early exploratory stage...........that typically only applies when you enter exclusive negotiations with a selected party

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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.

Lets hope it comes out of the Super Leagues purse and not being burdened by the entire sport.

  • Like 1

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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?!

Michael Carter or John Minards told us Trinity fans that two weeks ago in a zoom meeting. He didn't give the exact figures but he said the drop was nowhere near as bad as some were making out. Have to agree no idea why it's been kept so low key, it wasn't a secret. Odd.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) on the PE money, PE = payday loans in suits 

2) on the intro fee, this required Rothschilds to have one lunch and make 2 calls, plus put their report on nice letterhead = £750k 

3) on Elstone, why? 

4) on the TV deal, we will perhaps get the same again, and do the same with it again, and find ourselves with 10 M62 clubs in 5 years time; the vision is a 4 teams league, sharing millions between them... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

No, you misunderstand again, I'm afraid.

I don't believe in quoting anonymous sources, but I do glean information from them.

If we didn't use anonymous sources sometimes in Rugby League there would never be any news at all. But I don't invent quotes and claim that they are from someone wanting to remain anonymous.

As a matter of interest, part of Friday's meeting of Super League clubs was devoted to a discussion of how League Express (and particularly Matthew Shaw) could be prevented from finding out what had gone on at the meeting.

They failed again!

When the RFL are,somehow,praised as a governing body for their transparency,and at a time when clubs should certainly be connecting with their followers who have been deprived from attending games,why do the ' elite ' want to keep everything to themselves?

A man I much admire got upset when a discussion document got into the public domain.Was he upset about the content becoming known,or because the meeting was disclosed? I suspect the supporters of the clubs were quite keen to find out what the plans were.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/exclusive-wakefield-trinitys-michael-carter-wants-ban-super-league-leak-culprit-2862647

How serious,or how much damage was caused by the BBC giving out something to followers of the game which kept them in the loop - and,potentially,gave them something to look forward to? 

I'll await information on when the ' elite ' decide on a vote of No Confidence in relation to Elstone and how things progress from that point.

Will 750k cover it?

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Damien said:

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.

I'd rather have millions of pounds and only the big bash and the odd play off game than having rights! 

It's like league 1 and 2 in football- they are far better getting money from sky predominatly showing championship and EFL cup than showing league one/ two. 

Its difficult but I think if closer to £30m for SL then 14 club SL and shoestring for championship may be preferable to 12 clubs and slightly more than a shoestring?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

I'd rather have millions of pounds and only the big bash and the odd play off game than having rights! 

It's like league 1 and 2 in football- they are far better getting money from sky predominatly showing championship and EFL cup than showing league one/ two. 

Its difficult but I think if closer to £30m for SL then 14 club SL and shoestring for championship may be preferable to 12 clubs and slightly more than a shoestring?

This makes no sense, unless you think that Sky were paying millions for these rights, which of course they wasn't. I don't think even the most deluded SL hater thinks that.

Very few things in RL can be compared to Football. TV rights certainly certainly falls into the category of things that can't. You are talking like Championship rights have much of a value, they don't. 

Edited by Damien
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...