WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Dangerous4
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:15 pm
Location: High Wycombe, Bucks.

Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Post by Dangerous4 »

Yes I did read that Caterpillar were having financial difficulties.
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Post by ellis9 »

JP14 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:48 pm I think we need to go back to the days of having a major main sponsor, Caterpillar leaving looked like a sign that things were on the down. Perhaps there is no differnce between having 5 different mini main sponsors or just one, but that has always been the impression to me we should try and secure a big money sponsor.
You've explained it yourself. I read somewhere a while back that having more sponsors, each paying less money but all together giving us the same as one major one, works better. It means when one or two end, we are not missing out on as much money to when the major one would end putting more pressure on the club to find another big sponsor.
Dangerous4
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:15 pm
Location: High Wycombe, Bucks.

Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Post by Dangerous4 »

ellis9 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:58 pm
JP14 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:48 pm I think we need to go back to the days of having a major main sponsor, Caterpillar leaving looked like a sign that things were on the down. Perhaps there is no differnce between having 5 different mini main sponsors or just one, but that has always been the impression to me we should try and secure a big money sponsor.
You've explained it yourself. I read somewhere a while back that having more sponsors, each paying less money but all together giving us the same as one major one, works better. It means when one or two end, we are not missing out on as much money to when the major one would end putting more pressure on the club to find another big sponsor.

I agree, but it does mean that we are five times more likely to lose a sponsor. However, I would imagine that it would be fairly easy to replace them.
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Post by ellis9 »

Dangerous4 wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:13 pm
ellis9 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:58 pm
JP14 wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:48 pm I think we need to go back to the days of having a major main sponsor, Caterpillar leaving looked like a sign that things were on the down. Perhaps there is no differnce between having 5 different mini main sponsors or just one, but that has always been the impression to me we should try and secure a big money sponsor.
You've explained it yourself. I read somewhere a while back that having more sponsors, each paying less money but all together giving us the same as one major one, works better. It means when one or two end, we are not missing out on as much money to when the major one would end putting more pressure on the club to find another big sponsor.

I agree, but it does mean that we are five times more likely to lose a sponsor. However, I would imagine that it would be fairly easy to replace them.
Exactly. It's easier to find one or two smaller sponsors than one large one.
GwrxTiger
Tiger Cub
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:59 pm

Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Post by GwrxTiger »

Depends how you define 'Privately owned', as the club is already owned by the shareholders. As I understand it one of which, Tom Scott, owns about 47% of the shares, so when taken with Peter Toms shares gives then easily a controlling interest. Therefore giving them control of the direction of the club should they wish to exercise it. I think what you are referring to is outright ownership by one individual, which Scott had the opportunity to try and do when he bought his shares, but waived the right. For what its worth I would not want to see the club go down the single ownership route, and I do not think it would be for the long term benefit of the club, even if it did come with an initial cash boost.
Dangerous4
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:15 pm
Location: High Wycombe, Bucks.

Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Post by Dangerous4 »

So you envisage the scenario at Saracens for example, will ultimately implode upon them? :smt017
jgriffin
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: On the edge of oblivion

Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Post by jgriffin »

Dangerous4 wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:22 pm So you envisage the scenario at Saracens for example, will ultimately implode upon them? :smt017
While Wray has cash it won't, unless there is a significant rise up from the supine posture of Prem Rugby. At some point it may become irresistible to a hedge fund, but given Allianz Park isn't the Ricoh , probably not.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Post Reply