Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?
-
@booboo I think the players letter is really clear. It questions whether selling a stake is the only way to safeguard the game - and it offers alternatives. The media haven’t even talked about the contents of the letter. David Kirk has had a hand in it and given his roles in business you would think they would at least take that seriously. Instead they just start having a crack at the players and write articles full of impending doom. The media today is full off individuals offering their opinions without adding information to the debate.
With regard to NZRU Management, they can have no deal without the approval of the Unions and the players. They should have managed this better - arrogant is the word. Just after the Aussies told them to stick their Super competition as well. NZRU Management have a had history of trying to throw Unions under the bus with their short term decision making. But the Board has always had a wider perspective and a feeling for how well our structures have served us. I think these discussions should have happened in-house.
-
@booboo Wouldn't you? All the leading NZ players could be earning more playing for Toulon or Bristol Bears so should be commended for their loyalty. I've no problem with some of the Silver Lake money if the deal goes ahead going toward paying leading players closer to market rate for their services.
-
-
@mofitzy_ said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Even if there are other potential sources of investment/revenue, they aren't actually on the table. They are purely hypothetical.
Which is why on balance I favour taking the Silver Lake deal, but there must be a very thorough examination of what exactly is in the small print. The NZRU management wanting everyone to take the deal on faith is totally unrealistic.
-
Fitzy talking a lot of sense here. I don't know if there is any financial link between him and Silver Lake though.
Former All Blacks captain backs Silver Lake deal
Former All Black captain Sean Fitzpatrick says NZ Rugby won't get a better deal than US investment firm Silver Lake's - and they should take the money.
-
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo I think the players letter is really clear. It questions whether selling a stake is the only way to safeguard the game - and it offers alternatives. The media haven’t even talked about the contents of the letter. David Kirk has had a hand in it and given his roles in business you would think they would at least take that seriously. Instead they just start having a crack at the players and write articles full of impending doom. The media today is full off individuals offering their opinions without adding information to the debate.
With regard to NZRU Management, they can have no deal without the approval of the Unions and the players. They should have managed this better - arrogant is the word. Just after the Aussies told them to stick their Super competition as well. NZRU Management have a had history of trying to throw Unions under the bus with their short term decision making. But the Board has always had a wider perspective and a feeling for how well our structures have served us. I think these discussions should have happened in-house.
And they were until the RUPA letter came out?
-
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo Wouldn't you? All the leading NZ players could be earning more playing for Toulon or Bristol Bears so should be commended for their loyalty. I've no problem with some of the Silver Lake money if the deal goes ahead going toward paying leading players closer to market rate for their services.
Why do you think NZR ate trying to generate more income?
The ONLY source that generates enough income to fund the whole of NZ rugby is the All Blacks.
It's a catch 22. NZ rugby (as opposed to NZ Rugby) needs the All Blacks to make money to fund the game, but the more money the All Blacks make the more money they want, thus there is less money to fund they game, thus the All Blacks have to make more money to fund the game, and thus they want more money ...
And I'm astonished that people think NZR (there is no NZRU anymore) haven't looked deeply into this, considered multitudinous alternatives, carried out extensive Due Diligence, weighed the alternatives and settled on selling a small 15% stake of commercial income for $465m of capital as being a good outcome.
Firstly NZR, and thus NZ rugby, get $465m of capital.
Because we don't want to actually spend that capital, we also get a commercial partner that is incentivised to maximise commercial profit coz they get 15% of it.
Thus NZR's income increases and the players get paid more.
All I can see is the players trying to get their hooks into the capital, rather than the increased revenue.
Edit: typos ...
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
All I can see is the players trying to get their hooks into the capital, rather than the increased revenue.
I don't have a problem with some of the capital going to the players, especially if the rumours of Silver Lake wanting more AB tests in the US and UK are correct. A successful ABs team playing attractive Rugby is going to drive revenue more than anything else.
After the f**kups around All Black coaching appointments and decisions about the future of Super Rugby by the NZR management in last 18 months, I can more than understand why the players and other stakeholders are struggling to trust Mark Robinson and his pals.
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
And I'm astonished that people think NZR (there is no NZRU anymore) haven't looked deeply into this, considered multitudinous alternatives, carried out extensive Due Diligence, weighed the alternatives and settled on selling a small 15% stake of commercial income for $465m of capital as being a good outcome.
All I can see is the players trying to get their hooks into the capital, rather than the increased revenue.I wouldn’t be so sure - it looks like a big number and am thinking they are just creaming themselves, as are the media. There is no rocket science here. Just marketing and a line of credit from a bank. All we have heard is that they will set up a company to market the ABs. Why do they need to sell 15% of the ABs forever to do this? Silver lake don’t have special powers - do it them selves or hire people to do it, which is what Silver lake plan to do. We know nothing about the deal and how it’s structured, where the risks lie. Devil is in the detail but Ownership is forever and I just don’t want someone else owning us.
-
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
If Razor ends up coaching the England, the main person to blame will be the muppet who appointed Foster to coach the ABs instead of him.
That would be Mark Robinson.
Tew set up the process that made it untenable for Rennie and Joseph (better applicants than both Foster and Robertson) to apply.
I'm offering to drive Robertson to the airport on this one. Enough of the "oh I might need to go", "I will have to go" etc etc. Look at every AB coach after Hart. They all had serious lessons to learn in their first international stint it is better off he takes his lumps somewhere else than with the ABs. Bugger off and come back in five years hopefully ready.
(That said if the slide under Foster continues and we need to appoint someone 18 months out from the RWC I'd back Robertson over anyone to pull things together like Rassie in 2019 or Cheika in 2015. So it would be nice to have him in the back pocket.)
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
And I'm astonished that people think NZR (there is no NZRU anymore) haven't looked deeply into this, considered multitudinous alternatives, carried out extensive Due Diligence, weighed the alternatives and settled on selling a small 15% stake of commercial income for $465m of capital as being a good outcome.
I'd be astonished if they did, frankly. The governance around approaching Australian Super franchises directly was appalling.
NZR have been in the media about this, leaking like crazy. I hate that the players went to the media as well, but it's a symptom of a breakdown in trust between the two parties.
-
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@stargazer said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
I've the feeling that NZR is using media tactics to get everyone behind the Silver Lake deal.
It threatens provincial unions with huge bills if they don't agree with changing the format of the Mitre 10 Cup.
They use it in discussions about a women's SR competition.
Now, apparently, Robertson staying in NZ hinges on that deal. What have they told him?I smell dirty politics ....
What about alternatives to the Silverlake deal? Have they thought of any or is this the only horse they're betting on?If Razor ends up coaching the England, the main person to blame will be the muppet who appointed Foster to coach the ABs instead of him.
That would be Mark Robinson.
No the only person to blame if Razor decides to coach England is Razor himself! When a player goes overseas because he misses the ABs is exactly the same. If you want something badly enough you fight for it!
-
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Why do they need to sell 15% of the ABs forever to do this? Silver lake don’t have special powers - do it them selves or hire people to do it, which is what Silver lake plan to do.
although if NZR do that themselves, they dont get an injection of $465m and have to pay the people to do it.
Not saying I agree they should do it, but for me, this leans more toward it being a good deal than not, but as always, devil is in the detail.
-
@nzzp said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
And I'm astonished that people think NZR (there is no NZRU anymore) haven't looked deeply into this, considered multitudinous alternatives, carried out extensive Due Diligence, weighed the alternatives and settled on selling a small 15% stake of commercial income for $465m of capital as being a good outcome.
I'd be astonished if they did, frankly. The governance around approaching Australian Super franchises directly was appalling.
NZR have been in the media about this, leaking like crazy. I hate that the players went to the media as well, but it's a symptom of a breakdown in trust between the two parties.
It would appear the players felt they had no option other than to go public
-
Danny, you can't blame an individual for wanting to progress their career.
Razor has had incredible success in his coaching career to date and was seen by most people as the outstanding candidate to succeed Hansen.
we clearly saw that NZ rugby is not a meritocracy by appointing fozzie. This would have been a painful public process for Robertson to go through to ultimately be rejected.
There is a danger that Robertson doesn't progress as a coach due to him being in the Crusaders role for a long time and not challenging himself and being in a comfort zone. from what I have seen, he is not the kind of person to settle for that scenario.
The England role would be a huge opportunity but would also be a massive challenge for him on all fronts and ultimately make him better.
The NZR have actively encouraged our coaches to seek international experience, which ultimately has been to our detriment.
The danger is that Robertson goes overseas, paid a huge amount of money, raises his profile considerably and it becomes very hard for NZR to lure him back after fozzie oversees a disappointing campaign in a couple of years (which looks likely on the evidence so far).
so you cant blame Roberston for looking after himself, especially as there is uncertainty about his career progression in the NZ game
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
It's a catch 22. NZ rugby (as opposed to NZ Rugby) needs the All Blacks to make money to fund the game, but the more money the All Blacks make the more money they want, thus there is less money to fund they game, thus the All Blacks have to make more money to fund the game, and thus they want more money ..
They don't want more money, they automatically get more money. The collective agreement gives a percentage of income to players. No ifs buts or maybes, so yes the more money the ABs make the more they get. But it is not a catch 22, as that percentage doesn't change.
-
This post is deleted!
