Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?
-
-
@Tim said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@Dan54 said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
have sold 7% of profits
Hopelessly wrong.
Wasn't unusual. same happened in place I worked in Levin back in 1980s, in fabric business.
Really great stuff.
Using as an example , you do what you know and team up with companies to get expertise. I only mentioned the Levin one to show I personally have seen ot done twice where I had something to do with companies. It happens quite often.
Hopelessly wrong? This is what was always written about deal.
At the conclusion of the additional co-investment, Silver Lake will own between 5.71-8.58% of NZR CommercialCo (representing NZD $200-300 million investment, depending on capital needs and the uptake of New Zealand-based institutional investors) -
@Machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@Dan54 Sadly it is not 7% of profits, that would be OK - it is (whatever percentage) of INCOME, regardless of profit
So what is it? I have only seen figure I posted above, and it maybe expanded if Silver Lake take the other $100 mill of shares. From what I am able to work out with my very Ltd knowledge the $10 mill Silver Lake is getting at moment is actually their share of income, and not really interest (though it looks good in paper). NZR has an income of well over $100 mill a year. Broadcast deal alone is $90 mill, and I think sponsorship comes well over $50mill.
As I say, that's my Ltd knowledge, but some on here may have an actual copy of agreement that says different. -
@Dan54 Have you not comprehended any one of the 500 posts of this thread?
Silver Lake have not bought shares in NZ Rugby that pay out a proportionate share of profits, they have purchased a proportion of revenue. This is not a normal investment, nor venture capital, it is a guaranteed payment regardless of profit status.
You are posting like you know more than everyone, and you have no clue as to the nature of the deal.
-
ARHS has the summary.
I cant accept they sold equity, does my head in.
I own a business I can give top employees a profit share if I want as an incentive and an income. That's not losing equity.
NZR sold equity . Yeah nah.
Last 5 years has been a shocker. You can't draw a line under this. -
@Tim said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@Dan54 Have you not comprehended any one of the 500 posts of this thread?
Silver Lake have not bought shares in NZ Rugby that pay out a proportionate share of profits, they have purchased a proportion of revenue. This is not a normal investment, nor venture capital, it is a guaranteed payment regardless of profit status.
You are posting like you know more than everyone, and you have no clue as to the nature of the deal.
I have read many of the posts, generally from people who know as much as me, I realise that the payment comes from income, and why I understood it's in Silver Lake's interest to increase income. As I say, I find it hard to comprehend we on a forum know more about whether it good or bad business practice, the deal that has been done. The NZR has as many board members on the commercial identity that has been formed as Silver Lake , and that identity/board is who approves strategy.
I assure you I don't think I know any more or less than anyone else on subject, just what I have read. Also think the comments made by a few on here suggesting it all a deal done by Robinson (and not by a whole identity) etc and his Uni degree etc is crap, just not helpful at all.
-
In their heyday Carter and McCaw wouldn't believe this to be true.
Well it is and I'm whinging.
I would much rather have a simplified / downsized domestic NZ rugby competition and even accepted a lower World rugby ranking in the near future than the path they have chosen. -
does anyone know, is the "interest" payment the same as the income share? or are we paying them this on to of whatever they're guaranteed to get from income?
-
@BerniesCorner said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
ARHS has the summary.
I cant accept they sold equity, does my head in.
I own a business I can give top employees a profit share if I want as an incentive and an income. That's not losing equity.
NZR sold equity . Yeah nah.
Last 5 years has been a shocker. You can't draw a line under this.I would suggest your top employees aren't actually putting money into business to help it strengthen it's base, so not really comparing apples with apples are you? But anyway, that's enough of it.
We going around in circles, some know better about the deal than all the people on NZR , RUPA provincla boards , and some of us think they may have some idea of what they let themselves in for. Well the only person (a friend who has a business and is on provincial board0 I really know who's looked at it seems to think it quite reasonable (mind you he voted for it so maybe??) -
@Dan54 surely you can concede that people are known to make mistakes...look at how many bad movies get made with thousands of people working on them
And even if they havent made a mistake...there seems to be some confusion as to exactly what the deal is and what its trying to achieve
-
There's no way that the bad experience - as accounted for on this very website - of private equity in the UK Premiership could be in anyway predictive of the trouble that NZR would find. Time to pay Taika Waititi to make some expensive clips that get no views.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
there seems to be some confusion as to exactly what the deal is and what its trying to achieveSums up the AB rugby organization and selection process between 2019- early 2023 as well. Confidence is gone.
-
@BerniesCorner said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@Kiwiwomble said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
there seems to be some confusion as to exactly what the deal is and what its trying to achieveSums up the AB rugby organization and selection process between 2019- early 2023 as well. Confidence is gone.
No it just sums up the people that are confused. Lets face it , it's the Fern (or any rugby forum) if the NZR (or in Aus, Wales, etc etc) make any decision, all those that sit at home and read headlines would of done much better, and of course haven't been tolsd what's going on while perusing their chosen websites etc? As I said go to almost any forum in any country, it's exactly the same. I am constantly amazed at how many different ways that Australian rugby can be run in Aussies site, and found same in Welsh one I used to go into. The only thing they all have in common is they would all do it so much better, and the ones who have run coached etc) rugby for last 20 odd years were wrong.
Hey but it's all good , it's the internet. -
NZRU 'buy' 1 quarter of a single year's worth of their own revenue, upfront. For the price of giving away 5.7% of their own revenue forever and ever.
-
@Rapido said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
NZRU 'buy' 1 quarter of a single year's worth of their own revenue, upfront. For the price of giving away 5.7% of their own revenue forever and ever.
I think that article states that it increased to 7.5% after the second round?
-
@gt12 said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@Rapido said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
NZRU 'buy' 1 quarter of a single year's worth of their own revenue, upfront. For the price of giving away 5.7% of their own revenue forever and ever.
I think that article states that it increased to 7.5% after the second round?
Hell man it's the fern, ne need to say what the article states when there a chance for burning someone at the stake!
-
@gt12 said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@Rapido said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
NZRU 'buy' 1 quarter of a single year's worth of their own revenue, upfront. For the price of giving away 5.7% of their own revenue forever and ever.
I think that article states that it increased to 7.5% after the second round?
Yes. They increase it from 1.9% to 7.5% (which is an extra 5.7%) in return for $62.5m from Silverlake. And NZRU's revenue last year was about $240m.
Hence: "1 quarter of a single year's worth of their own revenue, upfront. For the price of giving away 5.7% of their own revenue forever and ever."
And if revenue even stays the same - They'll (we'll) have to fork out an extra $13.6m next year for the pleasure of that 60m this year. And then the following year do similar, and the next, and the next ...
