WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1359
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:15 pm
- Location: High Wycombe, Bucks.
Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?
Yes I did read that Caterpillar were having financial difficulties.
Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?
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.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.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1359
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:15 pm
- Location: High Wycombe, Bucks.
Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?
ellis9 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:58 pmYou'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.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.
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.
Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?
Exactly. It's easier to find one or two smaller sponsors than one large one.Dangerous4 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:13 pmellis9 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:58 pmYou'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.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.
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.
Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?
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.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1359
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:15 pm
- Location: High Wycombe, Bucks.
Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?
So you envisage the scenario at Saracens for example, will ultimately implode upon them?
Re: WOULD YOU PREFER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?
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.Dangerous4 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:22 pm So you envisage the scenario at Saracens for example, will ultimately implode upon them?
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.