NH club rugby
-
I think private equity put their money and want to get it out within 5 years. Usually a PE fund has a 12 year life cycle.
Did a bit of reading CVC Captial Partners yesterday.
Their 10 year holding of their F1 owenership was unsually long for them. But was also their best ever investment. In the end they sold most of their stake for shares in another company investing in F1, and took very little cash. Which again was very unusual for PE.
So, if this were to happen, you'd expect it would be sold again in 5 years time. With something having happened in that timeframe to have made the business more valuable (next TV rights issue).
-
£275m bid for 51% stake.
Clubs would receive roughly £17m each. (total = £221m)
Premiership rugby clubs to discuss £275m takeover approach from CVC
The Premiership has been approached by private equity company CVC Capital Partners over the sale of a controlling stake in the league
A report this week said CVC would take a 51% controlling interest in Premiership Rugby in return for the money which would give each club, plus London Irish, which is one of the 13 shareholders, a lump sum of around £17m.
It would also mean the clubs’ income from central funds would be halved, but a year of talks with the equity firm, which used to own Formula One and made £8bn from it in 10 years, has prompted the belief that the value of various commercial and TV contracts will more than make up the shortfall when they come up for renewal.
The key issue will be control as the Saracens owner, Nigel Wray, acknowledged, because CVC would be unlikely to part with such a large sum otherwise.
“CVC would only take 50%, not 51,” he told rugbypass.com. “The clubs would still have the balance and a much better business. It is vital to get a trusted financial partner to take the game forward and because of that Saracens would support consideration of this offer. I do not know if the vote has to be unanimous and if there are other proposals that are even better, then great, because we need massive investment.”
The clubs will be publishing their accounts for 2017-18 in the coming months and are expected to record an aggregate loss of £35m.
None of Premiership Rugby’s major contracts is up for renewal imminently: Gallagher is in its first season of sponsoring the league, the television contract with BT has three seasons to run and the financially lucrative agreement with the RFU over elite players does not end until 2024.Overseas television rights are one avenue but it may be that a deal is delayed until the BT contract comes up for renewal, with Sky said to be interested in reclaiming the rights it lost earlier this decade and the likes of Amazon being courted.
“There is not a timeline I am aware of,” Wray said, “but this can be a positive gamechanger.”
-
-
For background, I assume this is reflected in the price.
A big difference between Formula 1 and Premiership.
In Formula 1 you had:
- Teams
- Tracks
In Premiership:
- Clubs and Stadiums are mostly the same entity.
Therefore little competion from other stadiums wanting to cut someone else's lunch.
The tracks really got squeezed in the CVC Partners ownership era. Middle East and Far East and Caspian upstarts outbidding traditional European tracks.
Formula 1 also has a lucrative hospitality market, which I'm assuming, like RWCs, the governing body got their filthy mitts on.
-
@rapido said in NH club rugby:
So the clubs give up half of the TV Rights, League sponsorship, and RFU player access payments. For ever. In return for £17m each up front.
Given the professionalism on display, they'll probably jump at the offer. I'd treat it as an insulting ambit claim.
-
If the figure is provided, I've highlighted the central income the clubs would have to reduce their take by half for this deal.
Can view the total owner debts and loans etc per club - and then compare this against the £17m payment to owners if deal went ahead.
Look at turnover per club and profit/loss - and work out who can and can't afford to halve their approx £5m per year in central funding. E.g. Sale and Newcastle would be losing 25% of their revenue.
Bath:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Loan by owner £17.8m
Loss before tax £2.6m
Turnover £19m
Ownership: controlling owner is the sole shareholder, Bruce Craig.Bristol:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Loan by owner £21m
Ownership: Owned by billionaire Stephen Lansdown and his wife, Catherine, via their company, Pula Sport Limited.Exeter:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Debentures £8m; bank loan £5m (total = £13m)
Turnover £17m
Profit before tax £1.1m
Ownership: Club states that it remains owned by 700 members, the shares held by John Lockyer, Bob Staddon, Paul Derbyshire and Ian Pugsley acting as trustees.Gloucester:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Bank loan £4.5m
Loss before tax £1.2m
Ownership: Ultimately owned by Martin St Quinton, who made his fortune from selling his company Azzurri Communications.Turnover £16m
• Central income £5m
• Tickets £4m
• Hospitality, conferencing, events £2.6m
• Sponsorship and advertising £2.3m
• Bar sales and commission on catering bar and shop £1.1m
• Other income £1mHarlequins:
Owner borrowings/investment: Owed to owner £37m
Loss before tax £6.6m
Ownership: Ultimately owned by Union Mutual Pension Fund Ltd, registered in the tax haven of Bermuda. Reported to be owned by financiers Charles Jillings and Duncan Saville.Turnover £20.7m
• Rugby income £6.5m
• Central funding £6.1m
• Commercial income £8mLeicester:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Loan by owner £9.5m
Loss before tax £0.9m
Ownership: Most recent annual return notes a large number of individual shareholders; club states that no person owns 50% or more of the club shares.Turnover £19.7m
• Rugby income £5.5m
• Premier Rugby Limited income £5.4m
• Commercial income £8.8mNewcastle:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Loans owing £20m
Loss before tax £3mTurnover £9.7m
• Income from Premier Rugby, RFU and RFL £5.2m
• Match income £1.7m
• Commercial £2.7m
Ownership: Owned by Semore Kurdi.Northampton:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Loans £4.8m
Loss before tax £1.2m
Ownership: No overall controlling party. (are a PLC)Turnover £16.7m
• Rugby income £4.1m
• Premier Rugby and RFU income £5m
• Commercial income £7.6mSale:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Owed to owner £1.9m
Loss before tax £0.81m
Ownership: Owned by Simon Orange via a holding company, CorpAcq Ltd.Turnover £8.3m
• Premier Rugby Limited and RFU income £5.3m
• Rugby income £2.9m
• Shop income £188,429Saracens:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Owed to parent co. and shareholders £47m
Turnover £17.8m
Loss before tax £2.8m
Ownership: Parent company Premier Team Holdings majority owned by Nigel Wray.Wasps:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Inc £12.9m to owner £48.9m
Loss before tax £3.7m
Ownership Owned by Derek Richardson via Moonstone Holdings, a company registered in Malta.Turnover £33.4m
• Wasps sport income £16.2m
• Business income £10.6m
• Entertainment income £1.2m
• Hotel income £2m
• Sponsorship and venue income £3.4m -
So, lets take Gloucester as an example. Reasonably well run MOTR club who own their own ground. Central funding represents 31% of their turnover.
Gloucester:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Bank loan £4.5m
Loss before tax £1.2m
Turnover £16m
• Central income £5m
• Tickets £4m
• Hospitality, conferencing, events £2.6m
• Sponsorship and advertising £2.3m
• Bar sales and commission on catering bar and shop £1.1m
• Other income £1mDon't have much debt - £4.5m
Get a payment of £17mSo, now have cash reserves of £12.5m
But are losing £1.2m a year
In the next 5 years.
- RFU central payments unchanged
- Naming rights sponsorship unchanged
- TV rights unchanged for 3 years - then re-issue
Gloucester would have reduced annual income of £2.5m. Also assume still overspending by £1.2m a year? So now losing £3.7m per year.
So in 3 years time when TV rights are up. Gloucester have wiped their debts, but lost £11.1m in the mean time.
So are now £1.4m in the black after 3 years (out of that £17m)
How much more does the next TV Rights need to be to make this worthwhile for Gloucester? And then the next Sponsorship and central funding deal. To stop that £3.7m annual bleeding.
Doesn't seem like a good deal to me to sell in perpetuity an annual income of £2.5m at current levels - for 6.8 years worth of that income upfront.
I'd buy a rental property at that gross yield.
-
Apply the same scrutiny to Newcastle. Where current central funding makes up 50% of their turnover.
Newcastle:
Borrowings/investment by owner: Loans owing £20m
Loss before tax £3m
Turnover £9.7m
• Income from Premier Rugby, RFU and RFL £5.2m
• Match income £1.7m
• Commercial £2.7m£17m payment means £20m debt can be reduced to £3m.
Making a loss of £3m a year. After reducing their central income by £2.6m - this means they are losing £5.6m per year.
In 3 years time: Debt will be the remaining £3m plus and extra £16.8m = £19.8m.
So in 3 years time, Newcastle are back to square one.
-
What hasn’t been mentioned is European Cup Rugby income managed by EPCR in Switzerland. Currently PRL get 33.3% of that income from TV and Sponsorships. They and France reduced the amount the 4 unions in PRO12 received in the last row in 2011/12.
PRO14 comp is owned by IRFU, WRU and SRU. They’ve doubled their TV income with new deal this year. They also brought in SARU. SARU want to become a shareholder next year and they’ll be adding 2 more teams. SARU also want entry to EPCR. By 2020/21 season, it will be PRO16. This gives them a stronger hand in negotiating new EPCR TV rights but should also increase value of those rights for all three comps - PRO16, Top14 and Premiership 12.
-
-
@stargazer said in NH club rugby:
Geez, that's bad luck. Shields made his debut for Wasps last night and then this happened.
Soft southern hemisphere woofters.
-
Proper red card that one
-
I've only picked the bit that is relevant to the SH here, but obviously there are more interesting points.
Another suggestion is for a Ryder Cup-style weekend showdown in mid-June between the best club or provincial teams in Europe and their southern hemisphere counterparts. Imagine the five leading New Zealand Super Rugby provinces coming over to play the top five clubs in England. On the same weekend the three top Australian sides might play in Ireland while the five best South African sides are split between Wales and Scotland. The 13 fixtures would be spread from Friday to Sunday, all of them counting for one point apiece. The first hemisphere to register seven wins would officially be declared the stronger. Would it capture the public imagination? With international tours now pushed further back in the calendar, the clubs can clearly scent a possible gap in the market. The problem, of course, is that the same players cannot play every week or they will be dropping like muscle-bound flies. The clubs reckon they have an answer to that as well: the squads of the future (some are already doing so) will contain over 60 players to enable them to field competitive teams in the newly recast and expanded Premiership Shield (formerly the A League).Problem is, of course, that under the new global calendar from 2020, June may be a free month in the NH, but in the SH Super Rugby continues in June (no June break anymore) and will be followed by a July international window for international test series in the SH.
Maybe Premiership teams can afford to sign squads of 60 players, but SR franchises can't. But even if it was financially viable, SR franchises wouldn't field their best squads in this inter-hemisphere competition. The best players would play in Super Rugby and - on top of that - would have to be carefully managed (as they are now) with a view to the upcoming international test season. If this inter-hemisphere competition would be a competition between B-teams (at least from the SH), would this really attract crowds? And why would SH franchises agree to playing all the games in the NH? Players would be away from home for weeks and the games wouldn't attract viewers in the SH because of the time difference. If this is about establishing which hemisphere is the strongest, then this competition (in this format) wouldn't achieve that.
Imagine the five leading New Zealand Super Rugby provinces ...Do they even know there are only 5 NZ SR franchises?
the five best South African sidesDuh, there are only four in SR.
I don't know hom much of the ideas in the article really come from the clubs or from the author's imagination, but they should do their homework before discussing it.
Rugby union’s English club owners consider future direction of the sport | Robert Kitson
England’s leading clubs meet on Tuesday to consider a £275m offer and discuss a few more ideas for the future
-
@stargazer It's from the guardian. I'm surprised they have a sports section.
-
No thanks.
