‘A £100m offer could be made next month’

[dealwithit]

14 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Money to be spent on ?

Me being a complete ' Thicko ' , I just don't understand where and on what 

EXACTLY 

Please can somebody enlighten me , in simple terms that a simple lad from Leyth can understand

From Premiership Rugby after CVC bought 27% stake:

Premiership Rugby says the extra money will not result in a hike in player wages, but will instead go towards improving facilities at club level and growing the league globally.

"They key thing for the next few years is to build the facilities, the infrastructure and the investment in central marketing," added McCafferty.

[Copa]

12 hours ago, JohnM said:

If that  were to happen, imagine thd shock they'd have trying to work with the UK media.

I’d like to see the shock of the current SL bosses working with V’landys.

[rlno1]

V'landys is in bed with Murdoch who is getting heavily involved with sports betting. Murdoch is also in partnership with Melbourne Storm chairman Matthew Tripp, who has been heavily involved in Sports Betting. He is also a big believer in private equity to push the game forward.

It will all come to light in the coming months.

 

[Just Browny]

13 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

I hope the investor or investors are Russian billionaires who are best friends with President Vladimir Putin.

I believe Vlad was a big Oldham Bears fan but lost interest a bit when they dropped the name.

[gingerjon]

6 hours ago, Copa said:

I’d like to see the shock of the current SL bosses working with V’landys.

"You mean, you surrender to the clubs too. This is brilliant."

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, dealwithit said:

From Premiership Rugby after CVC bought 27% stake:

Premiership Rugby says the extra money will not result in a hike in player wages, but will instead go towards improving facilities at club level and growing the league globally.

"They key thing for the next few years is to build the facilities, the infrastructure and the investment in central marketing," added McCafferty.

Three years on.

What has the money been spent on and what difference has it made?

[dealwithit]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Three years on.

What has the money been spent on and what difference has it made?

I guess you’d need to evaluate if the competition has more exposure now than before — courtesy of improved marketing investment. 
Regarding infrastructure, I believe Saracens have upgraded their stadium. I wonder if Sale can access the funds to purchase AJ Bell?

[Wakefield Ram]

On 13/11/2021 at 07:56, Man of Kent said:

The new Forty-20 magazine reports a £100m offer by a strategic investor could be made as soon as next month. This would be for the British game as a whole. 

This ties into what Gary Hetherington has been telling the media recently, such as here and here. 

“We need to create a commercial entity which can really maximise the game’s worth.

“It will sit underneath the RFL and will be led by industry specialists to maximise the commercial value of the game.

“All the game’s commercial properties and key events will sit in this company, so that creates the perfect structure.

“You then need the right senior management and executive management to run it effectively.

“The governing body, ultimately, can only do so much. Most clubs aren’t maximising their potential. One of the objectives is to bring in a strategic investor – a major partner not just for Super League but for the whole game.”

“Part of this major piece of work being done will be to increase participation of the women’s game and sell it as a separate entity.”

“Constitutionally, all the Super League clubs voted to create this change and whole series of recommendations to move the game forward.

“All aspects of the game will be looked at; we don’t want to be coming back with anything in isolation. It’s a big piece of work which is going ahead now; I am confident things will change.”

“There is a common purpose now to do something collectively because our sport could be in jeopardy if we don’t do something about it.”

 

Anyone putting in £100m will want a fair degree of control. Hands up who think SL Chairmen will hand over control?

[EastLondonMike]

7 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Anyone putting in £100m will want a fair degree of control. Hands up who think SL Chairmen will hand over control?

Possibly a fair few once they see the colour of some money.

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, EastLondonMike said:

Possibly a fair few once they see the colour of some money.

For them to spend on what ?

[Wakefield Ram]

1 hour ago, EastLondonMike said:

Possibly a fair few once they see the colour of some money.

Think the ones who want out would take the money. However, can't see the majority agreeing to it. This is why Eddie Hearn didn't take his interest any further.

[Robthegasman]

23 hours ago, dealwithit said:

From Premiership Rugby after CVC bought 27% stake:

Premiership Rugby says the extra money will not result in a hike in player wages, but will instead go towards improving facilities at club level and growing the league globally.

"They key thing for the next few years is to build the facilities, the infrastructure and the investment in central marketing," added McCafferty.

My opinion is that if an individual or consortium do invest £100m in our game then not one extra penny should go into the players pockets.It should be used to build better stadia and to build a much better infrastructure and base.

[voteronniegibbs]

.

[Swansea Jack]

On 14/11/2021 at 17:43, M j M said:

That's like comparing the Premier Legue to Super League.

How about comparing the NRL to its real competitor AFL whose commercial income, tv rights income, long-term expansion strategy and public image trump the NRL in every single way.

As someone who has a growing interest in the NRL can you elaborate please.

[sweaty craiq]

It is vital any investment, and the subsequent future share of income it takes, is an all game solution - Beaumonts comments last season that it would be easy for him to say Yes then take the £4/5m as relegation favourites but what about the promoted clubs in future, whats left for them?

[M j M]

11 minutes ago, Swansea Jack said:

As someone who has a growing interest in the NRL can you elaborate please.

This podcast and the book it discusses are good primers - 

 

[Robthegasman]

On 15/11/2021 at 06:29, Just Browny said:

I believe Vlad was a big Oldham Bears fan but lost interest a bit when they dropped the name.

[Robthegasman]

10 hours ago, voteronniegibbs said:

Increased wages should, hopefully, be a natural progression of increasing the games profile across the UK via television, social media, etc etc yada yada. If it were to be divided between the existing 12 SL clubs, approx £8 million each, as a lump sum, there are only a few clubs who could properly invest it in the grounds they own. 

Could the £100m be best used as a central fund, that clubs could utilise depending on their own needs?

Increased wages in time yes would be a natural progression. And of course I am not saying that the players should not get cost of living wage rises.I think right now the priorities are building good quality stadia,building a good solid infrastructure and base first along with better marketing of the game and clubs etc etc.

 

[Saint Toppy]

12 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

My opinion is that if an individual or consortium do invest £100m in our game then not one extra penny should go into the players pockets.It should be used to build better stadia and to build a much better infrastructure and base.

In what way ?

Are you suggesting that clubs who currently play in decrepit old stadia get a handout and have a stadium built for them - If this is the case then presumably the stadium would be owned by the RFL, the clubs would be their tenants and pay rent, and the RFL keeps all matchday profits from things like food & drink ?  

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, Swansea Jack said:

As someone who has a growing interest in the NRL can you elaborate please.

I wasn`t going to comment on MJM`s post but since you are so interested I`ll briefly put the NRL`s side of the story.

First and foremost it`s important to remember that the NRL had 15 000 000 more views than afl up to this years finals series. That`s for a 200 game regular season compared to their 207 and we didn`t have our pre-season matches televised, there was no NRLW and viewers from NZ are not counted. They had the first two in their figures.

In 2023 we will have 17 teams and that advantage could increase to 30 000 000, if we eventually go to 18 we could easily be ahead by over 50 000 000. Easily I add because starting next year as well all 32 pre-season matches will be telecast as well and the women will be back.

Rugby League was widely regarded as the premier sporting competition in this country up until the the mid-90`s. It still is for many. The NSWRL`s ` Simply the Best` campaign with Tina Turner blew everything out of the water. It was fashionable amongst all classes to support a League team, League players like Luke Ricketson were in the social pages of the papers every week dating models etc. etc. League was fashionable.

One might even say we were victims of our own success because a certain media mogul looked at the game and said I can take this game any where, plonk down a team, scrap 100 year old clubs and it will be a rip-roaring success. Thus began the Super League war and the game tearing itself apart. Murdoch estimates he spent $100m trying to take over Rugby League and in the end all he achieved was bitterness and dislocation and a lot of people walking away from the game. I can only imagine now how that $100m could have been spent constructively, teams in Perth, Adelaide the sky could have been the limit.

On broadcast deals up until around 2014 the deals were roughly similar, in that year Lachlan Murdoch as part owner of channel 10 thought they had the NRL FTA rights in the bag in cahoots with his old man at Foxtel. It looked like a done deal until a last minute monster deal was done with Channel Nine cutting out Ten and Foxtel. This was when an enraged Rupert Murdoch made a trip in person to Australia ( he`d never done that before) for the unveiling of the next afl deal. 

Murdoch famously said at the time `afl has always been our preferred sport` and tacked another several hundred million onto their deal to spite the NRL. The absolute ludicrousness of his statement was plain for all to see, the bloke by his own account had spent $100m trying to buy the game 20 years previous, still owned 66% of the Broncos and had tipped in $50m + into the Storm until they got on their feet.

But truth mattered little to a media mogul scorned or for that particular media mogul at any time.

I could go on forever but one point where MJM is definitely correct is the problem we have in our game with player image and its` consequent effect on attracting sponsors and really breaking out of our working class demographic. If the NRL could get this one problem sorted a lot of the other issues were we lag would sort themselves out. We lost a big sponsorship with a national hardware chain early this year because of some off-field issue. It ain`t a good time in history for blokes behaving badly, especially towards women. Personally I`m hoping the growth of the women`s game and the integration of more women into clubs might nullify the boys club mentality that can pervade the game. Here`s hoping.

Unfortunately we are in a position now where League players are fair game and it`s considered newsworthy if you can find a scandal involving League players, real or manufactured. This is going to be hard to fix overnight. I put a story up on the cross-code page of a union player ripping the handle off a door of a toilet at the Prime Ministers residence for a souvenir, it was treated as a great big laugh, if it had of been a Leaguie, god help us.

Any way mate enough from me, one for sure though League is fighting back and if we can a few things right, look out.

NSWRL - Winfield Cup 1991 - Simply the Best - Bing video

 

 

 

[Robthegasman]

12 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

In what way ?

Are you suggesting that clubs who currently play in decrepit old stadia get a handout and have a stadium built for them - If this is the case then presumably the stadium would be owned by the RFL, the clubs would be their tenants and pay rent, and the RFL keeps all matchday profits from things like food & drink ?  

If a club was given say £8m from the RFL then that is their money,call it a grant.

Now I don’t think that £8m would be enough to build a Super League standard stadium but the money could go towards it.

So who would own it?

Not the RFL 

[M j M]

10 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Unfortunately we are in a position now where League players are fair game and it`s considered newsworthy if you can find a scandal involving League players, real or manufactured. This is going to be hard to fix overnight. I put a story up on the cross-code page of a union player ripping the handle off a door of a toilet at the Prime Ministers residence for a souvenir, it was treated as a great big laugh, if it had of been a Leaguie, god help us.

Any way mate enough from me, one for sure though League is fighting back and if we can a few things right, look out.

 

Whilst I firmly believe that many of the NRL's troubles compared to AFL are of its own making due to poor strategy, self-interest and short-sightedness, it is certainly very true that the AFL and its players get away with massively less scrutiny in comparison.

The Adam Goodes and Collingwood racism scandals make Yorkshire CCC look like a liberal bastion whilst if the bullying and harassment which happened at AFL House had occurred at Rugby League Central the administration of the sport in Australia would have been utterly crippled.

Notably I'm not aware of any AFL sponsors moving to distance themselves from that sport over any of this.

All that said, the problem the NRL has is that the drip-drip, seemingly every other weekend of players just being absolute douchebags has taken its toll. For good or ill, the AFL has never had quite that level of repeated problem, even if its scandals are individually more grotesque.

[Moove]

17 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

If a club was given say £8m from the RFL then that is their money,call it a grant.

Now I don’t think that £8m would be enough to build a Super League standard stadium but the money could go towards it.

So who would own it?

Not the RFL 

That's got disaster written all over it. Grants at grassroots level is a great idea - similar to the WC2021 grants - but selectively dishing out multi million pound grants to professional clubs to put towards stadia would be incredibly devisive and would risk delivering very little value back into the sport.

Imagine they give £8m to say Wakefield for stadium improvements, they get relegated and are living off 2k crowds or whatever. What an absolute waste of money that would be and a massive kick in the knackers for those clubs who have already invested in or taken on debt to fund their own improvements.

We'd be far better investing in digital media offering, maybe bringing TV production in house, youth development etc, things which benefit the game as a whole which in turn attracts investment for individual clubs so they can then afford their own investment in infrastructure.

If we were to invest a significant sum in stadia etc I think it would either have to be in the form of low interest loans, or into a single project (like the Etihad complex) which might provide the RFL with a long term and year-long income stream.

[GUBRATS]

54 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

In what way ?

Are you suggesting that clubs who currently play in decrepit old stadia get a handout and have a stadium built for them - If this is the case then presumably the stadium would be owned by the RFL, the clubs would be their tenants and pay rent, and the RFL keeps all matchday profits from things like food & drink ?  

No , but those clubs could access loans ( backed up then by other outside investment ) which would enable them to improve/build improved facilities that would bring in enough extra income to both pay off the loan and improve their financial state , be that a Wakefield,Cas,Bradford or a Swinton/Oldham , or indeed non heartland clubs potentially buying into an existing facility or new one 

Not a ' hand out ' 

[GUBRATS]

51 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

If a club was given say £8m from the RFL then that is their money,call it a grant.

Now I don’t think that £8m would be enough to build a Super League standard stadium but the money could go towards it.

So who would own it?

Not the RFL 

No chance , it would only work as a loan , from all the other clubs , one that has to be repaid , so that the money can then be reused again