Jump to content

Super League clubs reject private equity proposal


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, M j M said:

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.

There are several reasons why that's not true, but they go far beyond the subject matter of this thread and I'm anxious not to divert it down a non-related cul-de-sac.

At the most basic level, when you quote an anonymous source you immediately raise questions about the identity of the person being quoted and whether that person exists or if the quote has been invented.

I prefer to find information from variety of sources, interpret them and then generate a story which I'm confident will be factually accurate.

  • Like 1
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

58 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

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?

I must admit that I'm constantly mystified by the desire for secrecy by sporting organisations.

They all run sporting competitions that are intended to appeal to a wide range of people and yet they try to hide their decision making process and the decisions they make.

Of course there are some confidential matters they might have to deal with, but not to the degree that they go to in order to conceal what they are doing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

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

They (businesses) exist to make a living.  Where do you think pension funds come from?

If companies run inefficiently and go bust, where are the jobs, where are the goods that you might want to buy (if you are still in a job) if you cannot buy them (unless it's from abroad, who are more efficient)?

Private equity companies and their suchlike have an interest in ensuring that companies are efficient.  Like all companies some may be better than others. 

Rugby League is in competition with many other sports that are ravenous to devour as much of our fodder, our sustinence, as they can.  Without being capable of fending off the vultures ... from other sports ... RL will die.  It needs investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 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.

The clue is in the name.

  • Haha 1

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 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?!

It isn't quoted as fact, just a whisper. There is also the complaint that SL never tells the RL media anything, hence they only have rumours to go on - not healthy in any sport.

I notice that elsewhere it was reported as RL turning down an injection of private finance. This belongs to SL and they must own it, along with the £750k cost.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said:

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?

This was SL, not the RFL.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to a fundamental: PE don't just take a stake in an organisation then remove a % of the income from that organisation to get their return. They inject certain skills and expertise in order to increase the value of that said organisation in order to increase their own income, as well as that of the sport.

The thinking should be what exactly would they have done to bring about that increase in value and what prevents SL from doing the same job itself, especially if it had that £750k to kick start the process? In my naive imaginings this was the whole point in creating a separate SL operation in the first instance. Simply bringing in PE is the easy way out I believe.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Back to a fundamental: PE don't just take a stake in an organisation then remove a % of the income from that organisation to get their return. They inject certain skills and expertise

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 outside expecting to utilise their "expertise" at clubs or centrally have been duds. It's not because they weren't good at what they were doing, it's because a niche, very localised, regional sport like Rugby League isn't like any other business they are likely to encounter so nothing will have given them the required skillset. They will talk a great game no doubt but in many cases the levers they would expect to pull in a normal business simply won't be there - and that will leave them floundering.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, M j M said:

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 outside expecting to utilise their "expertise" at clubs or centrally have been duds. It's not because they weren't good at what they were doing, it's because a niche, very localised, regional sport like Rugby League isn't like any other business they are likely to encounter so nothing will have given them the required skillset. They will talk a great game no doubt but in many cases the levers they would expect to pull in a normal business simply won't be there - and that will leave them floundering.

The number of times I've heard or seen the words " they're succssessful business ' persons ' , and will do much better than the useless current board ( who themselves are/were very successful businessmen ) who are robbing the club blind  🙄

 

As you put , running a RL club isn't like running a normal business , no sporting club is , they are designed to lose money , not make it , I put on a thread a week or so back that I suggested to my fellow board members that the marketing budget should be first and foremost set before anything else including the playing budget , the look on their faces was a picture , they thought I was nuts 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"With several Super League clubs edging near to insolvency, the prospect of and investment of around £60 million into the game has been an attractive one for those clubs that lack alternative means of raising finance."

 

Will they be kicked out once they're broke?

  • Like 1

new rise.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Pulga said:

"With several Super League clubs edging near to insolvency, the prospect of and investment of around £60 million into the game has been an attractive one for those clubs that lack alternative means of raising finance."

 

Will they be kicked out once they're broke?

No , there's nobody else to replace them , unless of course you know some successful businessmen who will be able to run a sports club better than the last successful businessmen we had ? 

😉🤔😂

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

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. 

I agree- the rights are worthless (close to) 

The point I was making is that league 1 and 2 rights are worthless too- so the clubs in those divisions are funded by championship and EFL cup. 

Overall the point I was making is that I'd rather sky give rugby league £40m and the championship isn't on TV than the sport gets £30m but can sell the championship rights 

There were previous points on other threads and one on this that I inferred prioritised the RFL having the championship rights over more money, which I disagree with 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to be the harbinger of bad tidings on this forum, but if SKY offer "something in the region of £ 30 million" for Super League rights it represents a £ 10 million pound drop in revenue and a 25% reduction in the value of the deal.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/super-league-sky-sports-tv-rights-2024-bt-sport

So given that a private equity investor would have creamed off some of this contract leaving the clubs with even less revenue in te medium to long term from the reduced deal. A wise move to decline a short term gain which would have resulted in long term pain.

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 post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

I agree- the rights are worthless (close to) 

The point I was making is that league 1 and 2 rights are worthless too- so the clubs in those divisions are funded by championship and EFL cup. 

Overall the point I was making is that I'd rather sky give rugby league £40m and the championship isn't on TV than the sport gets £30m but can sell the championship rights 

There were previous points on other threads and one on this that I inferred prioritised the RFL having the championship rights over more money, which I disagree with 

Well if we were talking £10 million difference then yes you'd snatch Sky's hand off. That wasn't and isn't what's on offer though, unfortunately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

I hate to be the harbinger of bad tidings on this forum, but if SKY offer "something in the region of £ 30 million" for Super League rights it represents a £ 10 million pound drop in revenue and a 25% reduction in the value of the deal.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/super-league-sky-sports-tv-rights-2024-bt-sport

So given that a private equity investor would have creamed off some of this contract leaving the clubs with even less revenue in te medium to long term from the reduced deal. A wise move to decline a short term gain which would have resulted in long term pain.

Super League rights were not £40 million in the current deal. That figure is very misleading.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Damien said:

Super League rights were not £40 million in the current deal. That figure is very misleading.

It is surprising how difficult it is to get a decent breakdown of the previous rights. I know there is a link to an article on this site, but the numbers are all over the place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

They (businesses) exist to make a living.  Where do you think pension funds come from?

If companies run inefficiently and go bust, where are the jobs, where are the goods that you might want to buy (if you are still in a job) if you cannot buy them (unless it's from abroad, who are more efficient)?

Private equity companies and their suchlike have an interest in ensuring that companies are efficient.  Like all companies some may be better than others. 

Rugby League is in competition with many other sports that are ravenous to devour as much of our fodder, our sustinence, as they can.  Without being capable of fending off the vultures ... from other sports ... RL will die.  It needs investment.

Have you ever set up a new start business ? 

I have , I did it to make me rich , me , nobody else , just me 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dave T said:

It is surprising how difficult it is to get a decent breakdown of the previous rights. I know there is a link to an article on this site, but the numbers are all over the place.

It was in the press around the time but can’t find it at the moment... however, it was something like:

- SL - £143m

- Championship - £17m

- Sky Try - £20m

- Championship 1 - £6m

- Internationals/Challenge Cup/Immediate funding - £14m

That immediate funding bit was an upfront payment to the SL clubs... was it £300k. 

So if close to £30m per season is being offered to SL, then you’ll be taking that as it’s pretty much the same as the last deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

As you put , running a RL club isn't like running a normal business , no sporting club is , they are designed to lose money , not make it , I put on a thread a week or so back that I suggested to my fellow board members that the marketing budget should be first and foremost set before anything else including the playing budget , the look on their faces was a picture , they thought I was nuts 

I agree with you but this kind of invalidates your main point that an outsider view (in this case yours) can make a radical change to the way a business is run.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As my laptop is starting to show signs of being ready for silicone heaven and so I'm not wasting its last few moments:

I love it when all the myths that ever there were come to one thread: factual journalism, efficient industries etc  it makes for a far more interesting thread when all the content is dubious.

 The finder's fee alone would have been enough information to alert even the most enthusiastic capitalist or free marketeer to the questionable nature of capital investors.

The only thing that is true and more or less always so, is that while we're in the middle of the coming depression we won't recieve postcards from their havens.

The same people may also step in with a take over bid during the next period if they feel it can be dismantled at a profit or the rights to the name are of significance.

In the meantime a close associate at Westminster told me Russian oligarchs are the next in line to make an offer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, M j M said:

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 outside expecting to utilise their "expertise" at clubs or centrally have been duds. It's not because they weren't good at what they were doing, it's because a niche, very localised, regional sport like Rugby League isn't like any other business they are likely to encounter so nothing will have given them the required skillset. They will talk a great game no doubt but in many cases the levers they would expect to pull in a normal business simply won't be there - and that will leave them floundering.

All of that is pure speculation.  

In terms of what the RL does when left to its own devises, take a look at Bradford.  Look at Widnes.  Look at Wakefields stadium, look at the one at Castleford.  How many years has London been trying to consolidate... what happened to Sheffield?

Do you think doing nothing is a positive?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

All of that is pure speculation.  

In terms of what the RL does when left to its own devises, take a look at Bradford.  Look at Widnes.  Look at Wakefields stadium, look at the one at Castleford.  How many years has London been trying to consolidate... what happened to Sheffield?

Do you think doing nothing is a positive?

Or you could look at what a range of clubs have done what has been positive in that time too. St Helens have built a new stadium, Warrington have built a new stadium and have completely transformed the club from what it was two decades ago, Leeds have redeveloped their ground, Catalans have gone from strength to strength, Hull KR have grown and improved their ground etc. 

Edited by Damien
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

All of that is pure speculation.  

In terms of what the RL does when left to its own devises, take a look at Bradford.  Look at Widnes.  Look at Wakefields stadium, look at the one at Castleford.  How many years has London been trying to consolidate... what happened to Sheffield?

Do you think doing nothing is a positive?

Or you could look at what a range of clubs have done what has been positive in that time too. St Helens have built a new stadium, Warrington have built a new stadium and have completely transformed the club from what it was two decades ago, Leeds have redeveloped their ground, Catalans have gone from strength to strength, Hull KR have grown and improved their ground etc. 

 

Edited by Damien
  • Like 1
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...