Jump to content

Leigh to pay share of the private equity bill


Recommended Posts

15 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.

On the assumption that this multi million deal had gone through... would Beaumont have put his hand up and said, "OK.  We had not really had anything to do with this.  We accept we dont deserve to take the money."  ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

On the assumption that this multi million deal had gone through... would Beaumont have put his hand up and said, "OK.  We had not really had anything to do with this.  We accept we dont deserve to take the money."  ??

Did Leigh have a vote in acceptance/rejection?

I believe that it has been widely reported that DB was against the PE concept and felt that it wouldn't have been in Leigh's interests. He has also said that it would be crazy for someone like Leigh to be granted their wedge then, having been relegated, not suffer the consequences of the significant reduction in the TV money due to it being syphoned off by the PE partners.

In other words he thinks that it is/was a nonsense.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

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?"

If it wasn't included or there was no agreement that Leigh would be expected to pay towards any existing liabilities and/or outstanding charges then Leigh shouldn't have to pay.

If it was included or there was an agreement that Leigh would be expected to pay towards any existing liabilities and/or outstanding charges then Leigh should pay.

If there is no agreement, understanding or contract regarding the conditions of membership of Super League then Super League itself and all its participating clubs shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than Lego.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

If things had gone well at TW and they were in SL now but not getting central funding would you expect them to pay 1/13th of this cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Damien said:

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.

If things had gone well at TW and they were still in SL but without central funding would you expect them to pay 1/13th of this cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

If it wasn't included or there was no agreement that Leigh would be expected to pay towards any existing liabilities and/or outstanding charges then Leigh shouldn't have to pay.

If it was included or there was an agreement that Leigh would be expected to pay towards any existing liabilities and/or outstanding charges then Leigh should pay.

If there is no agreement, understanding or contract regarding the conditions of membership of Super League then Super League itself and all its participating clubs shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than Lego.

Thats a fair conclusion imo. Generally when selling a business you have an extensive list of known issues/potential issues, if an issue arises outside the disclosure that you were aware about you will generally end up reimbursing the new owner. A very interesting question would be who gave permission for this clause to be included in the first place, especially when it needed unanimous approval and certain clubs were known not to be supporters of PE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sweaty craiq said:

If things had gone well at TW and they were still in SL but without central funding would you expect them to pay 1/13th of this cost?

Presumably the money is taken from that central funding and as they wouldn't get any then I wouldn't see why they would. The same would be the case if Leigh were not getting central funding. However they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

If things had gone well at TW and they were in SL now but not getting central funding would you expect them to pay 1/13th of this cost?

If they were getting money out of the Super League kitty as a member club (and therefore set to benefit from this decision directly) then yes, but they weren't, so they shouldn't.

I can see an argument for Leigh's share being pro-rata'd down in line with their lower central funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

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/

Totally stupid to sell your business for a one off quick fix 

 

We should reject it totally 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If they were getting money out of the Super League kitty as a member club (and therefore set to benefit from this decision directly) then yes, but they weren't, so they shouldn't.

I can see an argument for Leigh's share being pro-rata'd down in line with their lower central funding.

Of course you could otherwise your answer made no sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

Presumably the money is taken from that central funding and as they wouldn't get any then I wouldn't see why they would. The same would be the case if Leigh were not getting central funding. However they are.

Say get no funding and pay nowt but get 66% funding or whatever it is and pay your 100% share. Makes sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The storm said:

Totally stupid to sell your business for a one off quick fix 

 

We should reject it totally 

Looking into PE isnt an issue imo, having a 750k finders fee for something that makes no financial sense is criminal, and whoever agreed this fee needs sacking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

If it wasn't included or there was no agreement that Leigh would be expected to pay towards any existing liabilities and/or outstanding charges then Leigh shouldn't have to pay.

If it was included or there was an agreement that Leigh would be expected to pay towards any existing liabilities and/or outstanding charges then Leigh should pay.

If there is no agreement, understanding or contract regarding the conditions of membership of Super League then Super League itself and all its participating clubs shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than Lego.

Good summary, this is all down to what was agreed and signed for surely. If good old Degsy has agreed to take on all current and future financial liabilities associated with SL then he has to pay up. If it wasnt signed for then he has an argument not to pay up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Say get no funding and pay nowt but get 66% funding or whatever it is and pay your 100% share. Makes sense

I never said that but if you want to make things up then feel free. I think its perfectly fair if Leigh only paid as a percentage of the funding they receive. I think its wrong that Leigh aren't getting full funding. I don't know what terms Leigh got promoted to Super League on but I think its fair to say if they didn't accept to pay it then they wont have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

Good summary, this is all down to what was agreed and signed for surely. If good old Degsy has agreed to take on all current and future financial liabilities associated with SL then he has to pay up. If it wasnt signed for then he has an argument not to pay up.

The bottom line is it will get paid, the debate is how much and secondary if Leigh pay 65k or whatever 1/13th is but get relegated (which is likely) does the club coming up on full money get it taken out and Leigh reimbursed or is that just how it crumbles, and if so if the PE deal is increased and accepted do Leigh say thanks for the £Xm - are then relegated and the team coming up get FA?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

I never said that but if you want to make things up then feel free. I think its perfectly fair if Leigh only paid as a percentage of the funding they receive. I think its wrong that Leigh aren't getting full funding. I don't know what terms Leigh got promoted to Super League on but I think its fair to say if they didn't accept to pay it then they wont have to.

So Leigh should pay pro-rata to funding and was it shown to Leigh as a genuine risk before Leigh agreed to apply/budget on reduced funding? If not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

If it wasn't included or there was no agreement that Leigh would be expected to pay towards any existing liabilities and/or outstanding charges then Leigh shouldn't have to pay.

If it was included or there was an agreement that Leigh would be expected to pay towards any existing liabilities and/or outstanding charges then Leigh should pay.

If there is no agreement, understanding or contract regarding the conditions of membership of Super League then Super League itself and all its participating clubs shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than Lego.

Yes.

Having said that, some lego sets are quite difficult........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

The bottom line is it will get paid, the debate is how much and secondary if Leigh pay 65k or whatever 1/13th is but get relegated (which is likely) does the club coming up on full money get it taken out and Leigh reimbursed or is that just how it crumbles, and if so if the PE deal is increased and accepted do Leigh say thanks for the £Xm - are then relegated and the team coming up get FA?

 

Again, it will depend  on the wording in the contract. If it states Leigh are entirely liable for full payments as per all others, then they will need to pay the full payment. If it doesn't, they wont. Its totally contractual this, there`s no grey area`s, or at least there shouldn't be, if it is then its been written terribly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

So Leigh should pay pro-rata to funding and was it shown to Leigh as a genuine risk before Leigh agreed to apply/budget on reduced funding? If not?

I'm not sure what you want, you seem intent on arguing for no reason. You will need to ask your chairman for the answers to your questions. However as this is the person that showed his desperation by saying they would take no funding I doubt he would have been too picky on the terms. If Leigh don't want it they can always go back down to the Championship, you know the very argument that Leigh fans used to throw at Toronto when unfair funding and terms was mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I'm not sure what you want, you seem intent on arguing for no reason. You will need to ask your chairman for the answers to your questions. However as this is the person that showed his desperation by saying they would take no funding I doubt he would have been too picky on the terms. If Leigh don't want it they can always go back down to the Championship, you know the very argument that Leigh fans used to throw at Toronto when unfair funding and terms was mentioned.

I asked if Leigh should pay pro-rata which you seem to agree with. Then was this shown as a genuine known risk, or was it something covered in a general brush over of risk with the assumption that theres nothing you need to catch up with - just sign here. It is fair to assume that nobody would be as thick as to put an introduction fee in for silly submissions.

You cannot have Leigh paying a full 1/13th and say TW should pay nothing if they were in SL, is my only link to TW as the club we replaced who were on reduced/zero funding.

How would you feel if the vote was take it Leigh took 5m and the next club in SL got nowt?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, dkw said:

Again, it will depend  on the wording in the contract. If it states Leigh are entirely liable for full payments as per all others, then they will need to pay the full payment. If it doesn't, they wont. Its totally contractual this, there`s no grey area`s, or at least there shouldn't be, if it is then its been written terribly. 

Its a strange one as what other payments do SL make from the clubs funding, I thought the clubs got X and Y was left to run the sport

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

I asked if Leigh should pay pro-rata which you seem to agree with. Then was this shown as a genuine known risk, or was it something covered in a general brush over of risk with the assumption that theres nothing you need to catch up with - just sign here. It is fair to assume that nobody would be as thick as to put an introduction fee in for silly submissions.

You cannot have Leigh paying a full 1/13th and say TW should pay nothing if they were in SL, is my only link to TW as the club we replaced who were on reduced/zero funding.

How would you feel if the vote was take it Leigh took 5m and the next club in SL got nowt?

 

Why do you keep arguing hypothetical scenarios that didn't and won't happen?

Either Leigh are contractually obliged to the costs of Super League or they aren't. They're paying them, so presumably they are.

Are these ifs, buts, and maybes a nice distractions from the fact that your club has clearly been blinded by the lure of Super League to accept a pretty poor arrangement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.