Tiglon wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:01 am
Either way, let's stop pretending that rugby is a haven of morality that would be tainted by outsiders.
Having an American investor is entirely consistent with the direction the game is going, so in itself I don't seem it controversial.
However, I sense the passion on this thread is because there's a much bigger question - being posed in football right now - that gets to the very soul of the game.
Are we, the supporters, comfortable with the direction the pro game is heading? Is it palatable that corporate investors own part or all of our competitions, clubs and national teams? Are we confident that their profit imperative won't erode something at the core of rugby?
Once the game turned professional, the gate was opened. A majority of the voting population in this country are seemingly comfortable with untempered capitalism, so the two fit fine. I would guess that the majority on here are comfortable with that, so there should be no complaints when economic advantage is all that matters, and clubs become commodities as brands and pawns in profitmaking.
There are a very few on here (myself included) who are not at all comfortable with any of that, but please don't complain about the values of rugby - Tiglon put it accurately and bluntly. John Griffiths also points out that not all owners are rapacious capitalists in rugby (though some may well have acquired their money that way), and while rugby remains a cheap sport to invest in (costing about as much overall as James Dyson's flights to Malaya) it won't change much. However, for me, CVC is an avatar of where the sport might go, and ring-fencing just helps somewhat.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Picking up on jgiffin's point about CVC and the direction of travel - it is reported that New Zealand Rugby (NZR) has voted to sell a 12.5% stake to Silver Lake, a global private equity firm with it's HQ in the U.S. They have a track record of investing mainly in tech companies, but one of Silver Lake's subsidiaries is IMG, and is headed by Mark McCormack, and this is sports oriented.
Of course, it was the CVC monies, and the subsequent interest of various other investors, that prompted the Tigers board to formally put LFC plc on the market a wee while ago.
There are very few professional rugby clubs that make a profit, (okay Tigers, Saints and maybe Exeter have been in profit at one time, but it is pretty 'small beer') and it does make you wonder what these 'investors' are seeing, and what changes they need to instigate to extract their returns.
MurphysLaw wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:07 pm
Picking up on jgiffin's point about CVC and the direction of travel - it is reported that New Zealand Rugby (NZR) has voted to sell a 12.5% stake to Silver Lake, a global private equity firm with it's HQ in the U.S. They have a track record of investing mainly in tech companies, but one of Silver Lake's subsidiaries is IMG, and is headed by Mark McCormack, and this is sports oriented.
Of course, it was the CVC monies, and the subsequent interest of various other investors, that prompted the Tigers board to formally put LFC plc on the market a wee while ago.
There are very few professional rugby clubs that make a profit, (okay Tigers, Saints and maybe Exeter have been in profit at one time, but it is pretty 'small beer') and it does make you wonder what these 'investors' are seeing, and what changes they need to instigate to extract their returns.
I think the hotel both limits and extends the potential. There's little point flogging the real estate TBH, almost no room to extend (I don't see LCC offering up Mandela Park), so to me multi-use seems more likely BUT I don't see much to tempt a hedge fund there. So that leaves either a billionaire fan (which we have a couple of?) and/or some big TV/international change. Any other ideas?
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
MurphysLaw wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:07 pm
Picking up on jgiffin's point about CVC and the direction of travel - it is reported that New Zealand Rugby (NZR) has voted to sell a 12.5% stake to Silver Lake, a global private equity firm with it's HQ in the U.S. They have a track record of investing mainly in tech companies, but one of Silver Lake's subsidiaries is IMG, and is headed by Mark McCormack, and this is sports oriented.
Of course, it was the CVC monies, and the subsequent interest of various other investors, that prompted the Tigers board to formally put LFC plc on the market a wee while ago.
There are very few professional rugby clubs that make a profit, (okay Tigers, Saints and maybe Exeter have been in profit at one time, but it is pretty 'small beer') and it does make you wonder what these 'investors' are seeing, and what changes they need to instigate to extract their returns.
I think the hotel both limits and extends the potential. There's little point flogging the real estate TBH, almost no room to extend (I don't see LCC offering up Mandela Park), so to me multi-use seems more likely BUT I don't see much to tempt a hedge fund there. So that leaves either a billionaire fan (which we have a couple of?) and/or some big TV/international change. Any other ideas?
If looking purely for a recapitalisation of the business, to pay off loans or fund projects, they could offer up a share sale to fans, through a trust or some such to defend against a gradual buy out. I think association football is looking at ideas like this and I think the Green Bay Packers in the NFL operate something similar.
Not that this is at all likely as it will devalue the shares already owned by the big shareholders on the board.
No, not that one!
Remember, whatever you do to the smallest of the backs you do to his prop, and you can't avoid the rucks and mauls forever...
I know you don't like it when I boo him but how else will he know he's wrong?
JG, I agree that there seems to be little for the hedge funds, such CVC and Silver Lake, in directly investing in individual clubs. At this stage they are more interested in the strategic levels of the game, and will use their investment in the unions, tournaments and leagues to bring their influence to bear.
If there is genuine interest from an investor, then yes, as you say, a wealthy individual is more likely, and as far as Tigers go, they would look to maximise income, much as in the same way the current Board are thinking. Improving performance on the pitch, maximising the Tigers 'brand', and looking for more year-round income. Spin-off from the hotel in the form of conferences etc., and maybe go ahead with the building of the multi-storey car park.Other than that, it is hard to see what might be of interest.
Crofty, Tigers went down the share sale to fans route many years ago, and yes, they could have a second issue. That could raise funds for the construction of the car park, for example.
Not sure that Mr Scott would be in favour though.
If there is a need for inward investment we should be looking at an individual who loves the club and has its best interests at heart. We should exclude hedge funds and the like and particularly overseas investment where the motive will be maximising returns on investment
Life can be unpredictable, so eat your pudding first!
I know that an American pharmaceutical company is
looking to sponsor PLR next year in some form. Investment from the US is only going to grow by the looks of it.
Noggs wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:24 am
If there is a need for inward investment we should be looking at an individual who loves the club and has its best interests at heart. We should exclude hedge funds and the like and particularly overseas investment where the motive will be maximising returns on investment
I think you've just excluded every potential buyer.
Noggs wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:24 am
If there is a need for inward investment we should be looking at an individual who loves the club and has its best interests at heart. We should exclude hedge funds and the like and particularly overseas investment where the motive will be maximising returns on investment
I think you've just excluded every potential buyer.
Not necessarily. King Power bought Leicester City as a marketing opportunity as much as anything else. The global reach of Premiership Football made that a gamble worth taking.
Whether you'd get the same thing for Tigers I don't know. Rugby doesn't have the same reach as football but at the same time Tigers and the biggest brand and most easily marketable club in the UK. To the right person we could be an investment that indirectly generates. The market for that sort of investor must be tiny though.
