SIMON COHEN AND TOM SCOTT

[chewbacca]

It was stated elsewhere that Tom Scott wouldn't want to see the club fail. In which sense of fail I wonder. I don't know if Mr Scott is a supporter or rugby enthusiast, perhaps he views it as purely a business investment and would presumably be satisfied with a 'fair' return on his investment. What Mr Scott regards as fair will almost certainly differ from what others would consider fair. As for the sale to somebody who would value the history of the club I am sure if an offer. is made which has significant enough return on investment then a sale will take place.

[sapajo]

Simon Cohen and Tom Scott effectively took control of the Club between 2013 and 2015, with Tom Scott becoming the effective controlling shareholder in 2015 with 46% and Simon Cohen being appointed CEO in November 2013. At the same time the remaining long time club men and ex players such as Peter Wheeler, Gary Adey and Roy Jackson left the board.

Since Simon Cohen and Tom Scott took control the club has been in almost continuous year on year decline in the three critical measures of league points, season tickets sales and profit as follows

Profit and Loss £k
Season P&L £k Decline
13/14………… 482
14/15………… 479……….... -3 down
15/16……….. -424 loss……. -903 down
16/17……….. -666 loss……. -242 down
17/18……….. -991 loss……..-325 down
18/19……….. -1,915 loss…..-924 down

Season tickets decline
Season Tickets Decline
13/14………. 14,945
14/15………. 15,239 ……… 294 up
15/16………. 14,775 ……… -464 down
16/17………. 14,500 ……… -275 down
17/18………. 14,027 ……… -473 down
18/19………. 13,530 ……… -497 down

League points
Season Points Decline
13/14…………..... 74
14/15…………..... 68…………… -6 down
15/16…………..... 65…………… -3 down
16/17…………..... 66…………… 1 up
17/18…………..... 63…………... -3 down
18/19…………..... 41………….. -22 down
19/20 run rate..18…………... -23 down

Such sustained deterioration across the board signals a failing Club which only a root and branch strategic, cultural and management change can reverse, as more of the same is highly unlikely to work.

The Club has implicitly accepted this by the decision to sell. The problem is that the sale price of £60m, at a time when the club is failing, is much higher than ascribed to it when it was successful. At a value of £60m, Tom Scott’s 46% shareholding would be worth around £27m, a profit of c £18m over my estimate of his investment at between £8m to £10m. Something is wrong here.

The danger is that the high price being sought together with continuing deterioration will make it impossible to achieve a sale. This could then lead to a default outcome of no change and thus continued deterioration, which can only be reversed by the controlling management recognising the failure and/or external pressure from other stakeholders to instigate change.

In the meantime I think the supporters need to stand up and be counted. A drop in just a 1,000 in the average attendance will add approx £250,000 to the loss.

I think us supporters have stood up and be counted our decline has been 5 years in the making and its quite remarkable the numbers that still turn up myself included at Welford Rd to watch utter tosh. Tigers is a business its product is Rugby and you cannot blame its customers for no longer wanting to pay to watch said product when it quality continues to be in decline.

[JGT57]

sapajo:

‘I think us supporters have stood up and be counted our decline has been 5 years in the making and its quite remarkable the numbers that still turn up myself included at Welford Rd to watch utter tosh. Tigers is a business its product is Rugby and you cannot blame its customers for no longer wanting to pay to watch said product when it quality continues to be in decline.’

My sentiments exactly and what I had the temerity to say earlier in the season, only to be identified as a ‘keyboard warrior’.
Bit harsh for a season ticket holder who travels home and away.
However, if we were all the same........

[chewbacca]

sapajo:

‘I think us supporters have stood up and be counted our decline has been 5 years in the making and its quite remarkable the numbers that still turn up myself included at Welford Rd to watch utter tosh. Tigers is a business its product is Rugby and you cannot blame its customers for no longer wanting to pay to watch said product when it quality continues to be in decline.’

My sentiments exactly and what I had the temerity to say earlier in the season, only to be identified as a ‘keyboard warrior’.
Bit harsh for a season ticket holder who travels home and away.
However, if we were all the same........

Times change. It's not an 'amateur' club anymore, although Tigers likes to market it as such with the 'Tigers family' branding, it is as sapajo says a business. It is run as a business and its major investor is looking for a return and as a business it needs to accept that if the product it is selling is found to be sub-standard then the customer may well decline a purchase. The product is the rugby, not a hotel, not a car park. Lets get back to making the product great.

[strawclearer]

The decline in season tickets seems to have hovered around 3%pa for the last few years. Be interesting to see how that compares to other clubs.....

[Traveller]

sapajo:

‘I think us supporters have stood up and be counted our decline has been 5 years in the making and its quite remarkable the numbers that still turn up myself included at Welford Rd to watch utter tosh. Tigers is a business its product is Rugby and you cannot blame its customers for no longer wanting to pay to watch said product when it quality continues to be in decline.’

My sentiments exactly and what I had the temerity to say earlier in the season, only to be identified as a ‘keyboard warrior’.
Bit harsh for a season ticket holder who travels home and away.
However, if we were all the same........

Times change. It's not an 'amateur' club anymore, although Tigers likes to market it as such with the 'Tigers family' branding, it is as sapajo says a business. It is run as a business and its major investor is looking for a return and as a business it needs to accept that if the product it is selling is found to be sub-standard then the customer may well decline a purchase. The product is the rugby, not a hotel, not a car park. Lets get back to making the product great.

Lots of businesses start off by selling one thing and end up selling something completely different. It's the most basic of all business questions. Ask the sage of Omaha.

Who is to say that Scott and Toms (not to mention Mr Cohen) don't regard the real business opportunity being hotels, property retail and parking. Welford Road is a prime site. Why run a rugby team? It's the only thing that gives sense to the decisions of these past five years. It's at least transparent. I don't know what the alternative explanation might be.

[strawclearer]

Who is to say that Scott and Toms (not to mention Mr Cohen) don't regard the real business opportunity being hotels, property retail and parking. Welford Road is a prime site. Why run a rugby team? It's the only thing that gives sense to the decisions of these past five years. It's at least transparent. I don't know what the alternative explanation might be.

I come on here because I value and enjoy the views of other Tigers' fans - the 'happy clappers'; the 'doom-mongers'; and all those in between! We have our moments but, in the main, we're a pretty sensible bunch who often get carried away but stay 'friends' and appreciate that we all value our Club.

All that said (and whilst I don't know Messrs Scott and Toms at all), to suggest Simon Cohen is motivated by anything other than the good of the Club is as daft as it is rude.

[Crofty]

sapajo:

‘I think us supporters have stood up and be counted our decline has been 5 years in the making and its quite remarkable the numbers that still turn up myself included at Welford Rd to watch utter tosh. Tigers is a business its product is Rugby and you cannot blame its customers for no longer wanting to pay to watch said product when it quality continues to be in decline.’

My sentiments exactly and what I had the temerity to say earlier in the season, only to be identified as a ‘keyboard warrior’.
Bit harsh for a season ticket holder who travels home and away.
However, if we were all the same........

Times change. It's not an 'amateur' club anymore, although Tigers likes to market it as such with the 'Tigers family' branding, it is as sapajo says a business. It is run as a business and its major investor is looking for a return and as a business it needs to accept that if the product it is selling is found to be sub-standard then the customer may well decline a purchase. The product is the rugby, not a hotel, not a car park. Lets get back to making the product great.

Lots of businesses start off by selling one thing and end up selling something completely different. It's the most basic of all business questions. Ask the sage of Omaha.

Who is to say that Scott and Toms (not to mention Mr Cohen) don't regard the real business opportunity being hotels, property retail and parking. Welford Road is a prime site. Why run a rugby team? It's the only thing that gives sense to the decisions of these past five years. It's at least transparent. I don't know what the alternative explanation might be.

To play devil's advocate for a moment; is it possible that the hotel/carpark investment has been made to help secure a diversified revenue stream for the future in order to help ensure that the club can continue to invest in its primary product when the salary cap inevitably rises past the point where gate receipts alone can support the playing squad, coaches and running costs of the ground? If I remember correctly at the time of the capital investments the board claimed to be spending up to the cap (I grant you they could have been lying) and had just appointed what they thought was a long term coaching set up. Given that the opportunity to invest was also time sensitive is it possible that they identified the correct long term strategy with one mistake (Matt O'Connor if my memory serves)?

[Traveller]

Times change. It's not an 'amateur' club anymore, although Tigers likes to market it as such with the 'Tigers family' branding, it is as sapajo says a business. It is run as a business and its major investor is looking for a return and as a business it needs to accept that if the product it is selling is found to be sub-standard then the customer may well decline a purchase. The product is the rugby, not a hotel, not a car park. Lets get back to making the product great.

Lots of businesses start off by selling one thing and end up selling something completely different. It's the most basic of all business questions. Ask the sage of Omaha.

Who is to say that Scott and Toms (not to mention Mr Cohen) don't regard the real business opportunity being hotels, property retail and parking. Welford Road is a prime site. Why run a rugby team? It's the only thing that gives sense to the decisions of these past five years. It's at least transparent. I don't know what the alternative explanation might be.

To play devil's advocate for a moment; is it possible that the hotel/carpark investment has been made to help secure a diversified revenue stream for the future in order to help ensure that the club can continue to invest in its primary product when the salary cap inevitably rises past the point where gate receipts alone can support the playing squad, coaches and running costs of the ground? If I remember correctly at the time of the capital investments the board claimed to be spending up to the cap (I grant you they could have been lying) and had just appointed what they thought was a long term coaching set up. Given that the opportunity to invest was also time sensitive is it possible that they identified the correct long term strategy with one mistake (Matt O'Connor if my memory serves)?

I don't think the hotel investment is wrong. Nor do I think the car park proposal is wrong. For all the reasons you give. However there is no reason why the owners might not have decided that they will get a better return on their investment by selling to the highest bidder taking into account the development opportunity the land offers. They don't need a rugby team.

To suggest that Matt O'Connor is the 'one mistake' - is to take a very big all purpose eraser, to scrub clean the pages, and completely re-write history.

[voice of the crumbie]

[/quote]
To suggest that Matt O'Connor is the 'one mistake' - is to take a very big all purpose eraser, to scrub clean the pages, and completely re-write history.
[/quote]

It was not the only mistake but it was certainly the worst mistake. I sometimes think we underestimate the depth of the damage he did to Tigers and the time it will take to recover from it. This is why I believe we are still seeing performances like those against Saints and Irish. Whether we like it or not there has been a massive player turnover between this season and last. Add to that the effect of the World Cup and there is some mitigation for the sub-standard performances. For me it's a confidence issue. We have enough current and former internationals of quality plus some good youngsters to take on the majority of premiership club. The coaches now have the challenge to make them into a team of consistent performers with a coherent game plan that all buy into. Saints, Exeter, Sarries are examples of clubs who have achieved this. We have still some way to go to get there but get there we must as the alternative doesn't bear contemplation. Will we do it? I honestly don't know. But I'll do my best to get behind whatever 23 players the coaches send out on match day.

[Doghashadhisday]

I think us supporters have stood up and be counted our decline has been 5 years in the making and its quite remarkable the numbers that still turn up myself included at Welford Rd to watch utter tosh. Tigers is a business its product is Rugby and you cannot blame its customers for no longer wanting to pay to watch said product when it quality continues to be in decline.

Is the quality in decline? Genge, Cole, Lavanini, Taufua, Youngs, Ford ,Tuilagi, May, Veianu. We also have various 19/21 year olds coming into the first team who will probably develop over the next few years. Yes 5 years of decline will take a long time to put right.

[Redstripeman]

To suggest that Matt O'Connor is the 'one mistake' - is to take a very big all purpose eraser, to scrub clean the pages, and completely re-write history.
[/quote]

It was not the only mistake but it was certainly the worst mistake. I sometimes think we underestimate the depth of the damage he did to Tigers and the time it will take to recover from it. This is why I believe we are still seeing performances like those against Saints and Irish. Whether we like it or not there has been a massive player turnover between this season and last. Add to that the effect of the World Cup and there is some mitigation for the sub-standard performances. For me it's a confidence issue. We have enough current and former internationals of quality plus some good youngsters to take on the majority of premiership club. The coaches now have the challenge to make them into a team of consistent performers with a coherent game plan that all buy into. Saints, Exeter, Sarries are examples of clubs who have achieved this. We have still some way to go to get there but get there we must as the alternative doesn't bear contemplation. Will we do it? I honestly don't know. But I'll do my best to get behind whatever 23 players the coaches send out on match day.
[/quote]

.. the question you need to ask yourself is who appointed him!!!
You are obviously overlooking the "world wide search" instigated by the board to offer the role to the first person that knocked on their door. From your post you do not appear to attribute any blame to the BoD even though this is clearly of their own making.
. What will it take for you to understand that the club is at the mercy of these Directors and no amount of "happy clapping" is going to erase the stink, that is at the moment, pervading the club!

[Doghashadhisday]

Other than his £5.5m loan note conversion (for which he extracted c.£1.2m in interest payments first) he has not "put money" into the club, he has purchased shares from other shareholders. That is a very different thing. The club has also been announced for sale only about 18 months to two years after this conversion at roughly double the price he paid for it.

As for not being an executive director therefore not responsibile, 1) that is not how non-Executive directorships work, you are as responsible for the business as the executive directors legally, 2) he owns c.46% of the shares and given the large number of non-voting smaller shareholders de facto controls the company. So Peter Tom might be executive chairman but that is only at Tom Scott's behest.

First of all you say extracted £1.2m in interest which makes it sound like a bad thing. If you have £5.5m spare would you like to give it to me interest free for 6 years, and then at the end of the 6 years instead of paying you back convert it into shares where I will get no dividends or income from it?
Executive directors role is to run and manage the company on a day to day basis for the benefit of shareholders. The role of the non-executives is to try and ensure the executives act in the best interest of the shareholders. Unless you are suggesting that Tom Scott wants to let the executive directors ruin his investment. Ok things have gone pear-shaped especially last season and obviously with hindsight there have been mistakes made by the Board which likely will take about 5 seasons to put right. People on here complain that all Scott and the other shareholders want is to build a hotel and car park etc but they have invested heavily in bringing/keeping some top quality players such as Genge, Ford, May , Tuilagi etc so it seems absurd that people are suggesting we have not invested in the rugby side of things and only in commercial activities. For a club like ours, without a sugar-daddy the commercial activities are essential to the survival of the club.

[mol2]

We sometimes confuse the playing side of the Tigers operation with the business side.

Ultimately the side can only pay the players the amounts the salary cap permits (unless you are Sarries) and given the signings there isn't much wiggle room likely on the player signings front.

Our problem is coaching and or influential players not allowing the coaches to have their strategies implemented.

Ultimately the directors are responsible for the coaching appointments and for supporting the coaches if player power tries to interfere.

[Crofty]

To suggest that Matt O'Connor is the 'one mistake' - is to take a very big all purpose eraser, to scrub clean the pages, and completely re-write history.

I'm not suggesting he was the only mistake they've made, I'm saying that believing him to be the long term coaching solution (and so the coaching team not requiring a big cash injection for some years) was the mistake in the investment strategy I outlined as what they might potentially have been following.

I think it's a big stretch to suggest, as you seem to be, that the board of directors of the biggest rugby club in the uk (in terms of fan base at least) has decided that rugby is no longer the thing the company that runs said club should do.