Leigh to pay share of the private equity bill

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

Leigh aren’t happy at having to pay their share of the £750,000 private equity exploration bill, and rightly so IMO. Derek says those pushing the private equity agenda should foot the bill and for once I fully agree with him.

Interestingly Derek reveals Saints were against private equity from the outset. Saints are owned by Eamonn McManus, the former investment banker. It says a lot about private equity that an investment banker was not willing to consider it as an option.

https://www.totalrl.com/leigh-chairman-stands-out-against-private-equity-abort-payment/

[whatmichaelsays]

Presumably, as the other 11 clubs assumed that Leigh's cost base would be significantly reduced because of the impact of COVID-19, the clubs will be affording them the appropriate discount on their tab? 

Can't have it both ways after all. 

[Spidey]

So effectively Leigh's central funding has been decreased again.   That's just plain wrong

 

[Angelic Cynic]

Super League.The sport is safe in their hands.

Need female club owners as quickly as possible.

The males have had over a 100 years.

Can they not see beyond the base of a beer glass?

[Damien]

I don't really see the big deal with Leigh having to pay. Its just the same as it ever was when teams go up or down. Super League as a whole pursued PE and Leigh are now part of that club, with the benefits and negatives of that.

Leigh not getting full funding is a completely different issue. I have always said that is completely wrong but I don't think the two are linked at all.

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I don't really see the big deal with this. Its just the same as it ever was when teams go up or down. Super League as a whole pursued PE and Leigh are now part of that club, with the benefits and negatives of that.

Leigh not getting full funding is a completely different issue. I have always said that is completely wrong but I don't think the two are linked at all.

It’s a bit bonkers to suggest those who voted no shouldn’t have to pay though. 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s a bit bonkers to suggest those who voted no shouldn’t have to pay though. 

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant the big deal with Leigh having to pay.

[Eddie]

You can only have half the tv money, but you have to pay your share of some bonkers PE investigation what you had nowt to do with. Classic super league. 

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant the big deal with Leigh having to pay.

Oh, I agree with you on that. Beaumont’s alternative idea, however, was daft. 

[gingerjon]

When Leigh joined Super League presumably there was some kind of Memorandum of Understanding/agreement about what liabilities and responsibilities they would have as a member?

Whether they need to pay this money will be covered in that. Fairness won't be part of it.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

When Leigh joined Super League presumably there was some kind of Memorandum of Understanding/agreement about what liabilities and responsibilities they would have as a member?

Whether they need to pay this money will be covered in that. Fairness won't be part of it.

You'd hope to think that was the case.  If they received full funding I'd have less of an issue from a fairness point of view

[Rupert Prince]

4 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Oh, I agree with you on that. Beaumont’s alternative idea, however, was daft. 

Indeed.  He is saying that the clubs that refused the deal should escape the cost of refusing it!   

 

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Oh, I agree with you on that. Beaumont’s alternative idea, however, was daft. 

Totally.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

When Leigh joined Super League presumably there was some kind of Memorandum of Understanding/agreement about what liabilities and responsibilities they would have as a member?

Whether they need to pay this money will be covered in that. Fairness won't be part of it.

Quite, and of course if you didn't agree with those terms you weren't forced to apply?

[sweaty craiq]

So IF Leigh had voted for this PE deal they pocket the cash leaving the next club up with nothing?

IF the PE is paid annually then the next club up doesnt pay the finders fee?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, sweaty craiq said:

So IF Leigh had voted for this PE deal they pocket the cash leaving the next club up with nothing?

IF the PE is paid annually then the next club up doesnt pay the finders fee?

What did Leigh agree to when they joined Super League?

It will all be covered there.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

What did Leigh agree to when they joined Super League?

It will all be covered there.

In all likelihood:

Leigh applied and agreed to be a Super League club for 2021 late last year, with all the costs and benefits associated with that along with the agreement to accept reduced funding due to the savings of the previous year comparative to the existing 11 Super League clubs.

Leigh were (somewhat understandably) that desperate to become a Super League club that they took the "any deal is better than no deal" approach and find themselves where they are now.

[Harry Stottle]

43 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

When Leigh joined Super League presumably there was some kind of Memorandum of Understanding/agreement about what liabilities and responsibilities they would have as a member?

Whether they need to pay this money will be covered in that. Fairness won't be part of it.

You really believe that the SL board had that much foresight to issue a statement about liabilities and responsibilities including any monies owed for the introduction of PE organisation?

[Harry Stottle]

37 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Quite, and of course if you didn't agree with those terms you weren't forced to apply?

So you think it was outlined when the Championship clubs were asked to apply for the 12th spot vacated by Toronto?

[Harry Stottle]

28 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

What did Leigh agree to when they joined Super League?

It will all be covered there.

You tell us Ginger, you have already suggested

"Super League presumably there was some kind of Memorandum of Understanding/agreement about what liabilities and responsibilities they would have as a member?"

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So you think it was outlined when the Championship clubs were asked to apply for the 12th spot vacated by Toronto?

It will certainly have been included, Leigh might argue unclearly, before Leigh accepted becoming team 12.

[Blind side johnny]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I don't really see the big deal with Leigh having to pay. Its just the same as it ever was when teams go up or down. Super League as a whole pursued PE and Leigh are now part of that club, with the benefits and negatives of that.

Leigh not getting full funding is a completely different issue. I have always said that is completely wrong but I don't think the two are linked at all.

When the commitment for this expenditure was made Leigh were not a SL member which I believe does carry with it a separate status. Hence it does seem unfair to expect them to pay for something about which they had no part.

It would make more sense to tell Toronto that they owe a share.

[Blind side johnny]

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It will certainly have been included, Leigh might argue unclearly, before Leigh accepted becoming team 12.

Do you know this for a fact or are you simply assuming that the SL clubs couldn't have overlooked it?

(Question to SL clubs: what are the terms and conditions of your CEO's contract?)

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Do you know this for a fact or are you simply assuming that the SL clubs couldn't have overlooked it?

(Question to SL clubs: what are the terms and conditions of your CEO's contract?)

Unless Leigh successfully fight a court case (which given this report I don't think they are) I'm sure it must have been covered in the contracts.

I did recognise Leigh might feel it was done in an unclear fashion - that's to say it wasn't stated outright, but came under a blanket term such as "costs for all shareholders" or something similar. In that case its a cost they weren't expecting but one they are contractually liable for. In my experience, claiming ignorance or that your own examination and understanding of a contract was limited in some way doesn't absolve you from the terms of said contract.

Like I said Leigh will probably feel a bit peeved about this, but like certain other negotiations we've seen in recent years they entered this with effectively a rather desperate blank cheque from day one and that has its repercussions.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

When the commitment for this expenditure was made Leigh were not a SL member which I believe does carry with it a separate status. Hence it does seem unfair to expect them to pay for something about which they had no part.

It would make more sense to tell Toronto that they owe a share.

Decisions happen all the time about the running of organisations. Seasons don't run in isolation and if Leigh want the benefits from previous decisions made previously then they must also accept the negatives. Maybe they shouldn't get a cut of the Betfred extension sponsorship money because that decision was taken because they weren't in Super League at that time.