Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?
-
The only credit I will give Rob Nicol is the fact he is winning the charm offensive hands down , has strategically drip fed the media with former with much respected former All Blacks urging the NZRFU to rethink but in reality the deal they have put on the table has so many flaws in it based on a whole lot maybes and might be’s .
I spoke to a CEO of a provincial union this morning .the due diligence that not just the NZRFU has put in regarding the Silver Lake deal has left no stone unturned and the Unions have been a big part of this process.
Price Waterhouse Cooper also looked over the deal and said you would have rocks in your head not to run with this deal especially with the intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency frameworkThe Silver lake deal will have an immediate cash benefit to the Unions where the Forsyth Barr Proposal has a real sausage fundraising aspect to it with figures just being thrown in the air like a lollie scramble and by the way , you will need to hire even more Tech people to run what Silver Lake is already offering .
That’s it explained in a nutshell ..however the NZRFU need to lift their game when it comes to dealing with the media ..Brent Impey comes across like an angry man and Mark Robinson sounds like a totally frustrated man .
Time to push on and sign on the dotted line ..balls in your court Rob .
-
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework
"intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework"
What does this mean?
-
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework
"intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework"
What does this mean?
I’m yet to hear it clearly explained but the past consultant in me hears this:
credibly provide access to e-business growth strategies
See here
-
@gt12 pretty much .., what do the RPA have right now ..?
-
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@gt12 pretty much .., what do the RPA have right now ..?
No idea, ask them yourself, aren't you are journalist?
Edit: Sorry if that sounds bitchy, it's not intended that way (OK, maybe a little bit), but the alternative deal is winning the PR war because Kirk has explained that it provides the short-term funding (with the option to release more) needed now, meaning that NZRU can maintain 95% of their revenue, (rather than 87.5%) and therefore remain more profitable as an enterprise, plus they are suggesting that it can be done locally, all of which are conceptually attractive to local fans.
-
@gt12 sorry that question was supposed to be Rhetorical..hoping a conclusion comes sooner rather later , may have some news later in the week
-
I agree with Hansen, these parties need to get together and sort this behind closed doors rather than through the media.
Players come over as a bit greedy to me, NZR come over as fools.
In saying that, Robinson hasn't really done much right since taking over from Tew has he?
-
@gt12 said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework
"intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework"
What does this mean?
I’m yet to hear it clearly explained but the past consultant in me hears this:
credibly provide access to e-business growth strategies
See here
Thanks, I genuinely had no idea what it meant. I’d be all over buying streaming directly from NZR.
Edit: Great link, giving that to my boss.
-
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@gt12 said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework
"intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework"
What does this mean?
I’m yet to hear it clearly explained but the past consultant in me hears this:
credibly provide access to e-business growth strategies
See here
Thanks, I genuinely had no idea what it meant. I’d be all over buying streaming directly from NZR.
Edit: Great link, giving that to my boss.
When I was doing some consultancy with a friend of mine a few years ago, we would add at least one phrase from that site in our presentation and challenge the other to pick it in real time.
-
@gt12 said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework
"intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework"
What does this mean?
I’m yet to hear it clearly explained but the past consultant in me hears this:
credibly provide access to e-business growth strategies
See here
I thought the article with Buck Shelford hit the mark. He was saying that he heard a story but wasn’t convinced by it and then the answers given to questions didn’t give him any more reassurance. The nuts and bolts are what will Silverlake do to make this company that NZRFU is investing $40m of its sales price into to work? Does it come with some agreed commercial arrangements and IP or is it just another startup making its way in the world. Everything else is just spin. That’s what they need to convince the stakeholders. This have to do it, best option, rush to sign it is just not right. It is not your typical business. It has many stakeholders and as Buck says, they haven’t been consulted in a genuine way.
It would be interesting to see the history of NZ companies who have rushed to buy assets overseas, and ended up being sold pups e.g. two old ones now being Telecom with AAPT, Warehouse with Yellow sheds in Aussie. I am sure they had analysts all over those deals and then ended up losing their shirts. Can’t really think of any expansionary successes?
In comparison, corporate raiders have had sweet pickings in NZ. We always buy the line that we need international investment and sell ownership, when it’s not money that is required.
-
@gt12 said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework
"intellectual tech that Silver Lake offers in terms of capability and competency framework"
What does this mean?
I’m yet to hear it clearly explained but the past consultant in me hears this:
credibly provide access to e-business growth strategies
See here
Brilliant - love it.
-
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The only credit I will give Rob Nicol is the fact he is winning the charm offensive hands down ,
Is he? Being out of the country I'm missing that.
I'll once again reiterate my position in that the Silver Lake deal is a guaranteed lump sum capital investment for an agreed percentage return, with a win-win based on increasing revenue through avenues that the investors have available to them.
The FSB deal seems to be a nebulous, hoped for investment, appealing to people who are already heavily invested in NZ rugby, without a clear plan to increase revenue.
Anyone remember that failed campaign in the early/mid 90s under that idiot David Moffett where you could ring a 0900 number to "donate" $5 to "club rugby". Seemed like a good idea. But the people who would be prepared to send $5 to club rugby were already up to their eye balls in membership fees, volunteering, sponsoring etc etc.
Mum and Dad investors aren't buying into this as they're already a part if it.
Can't see institutional investors buying in as they just want the return, without the effort to try and increase that revenue.
And again, the only part of this equation whose only responsibility is to maximise the return for the individuals within it's membership is the only stakeholder resisting the deal.
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The only credit I will give Rob Nicol is the fact he is winning the charm offensive hands down ,
Is he? Being out of the country I'm missing that.
I'll once again reiterate my position in that the Silver Lake deal is a guaranteed lump sum capital investment for an agreed percentage return, with a win-win based on increasing revenue through avenues that the investors have available to them.
The FSB deal seems to be a nebulous, hoped for investment, appealing to people who are already heavily invested in NZ rugby, without a clear plan to increase revenue.
Anyone remember that failed campaign in the early/mid 90s under that idiot David Moffett where you could ring a 0900 number to "donate" $5 to "club rugby". Seemed like a good idea. But the people who would be prepared to send $5 to club rugby were already up to their eye balls in membership fees, volunteering, sponsoring etc etc.
Mum and Dad investors aren't buying into this as they're already a part if it.
Can't see institutional investors buying in as they just want the return, without the effort to try and increase that revenue.
And again, the only part of this equation whose only responsibility is to maximise the return for the individuals within it's membership is the only stakeholder resisting the deal.
It’s Silverlake that get the guaranteed return. 6.7%. Then it’s the NZRFU that is funding the new company. It’s a startup so there is risk which is 100% with the NZRFU.
So exactly what commercial agreements and IP will Silverlake provide to this new company? We have heard they will be allowed to advertise on Twitter ( along with everyone else ) and they can build some Rugby games ( as anyone can ). Where are the new deals that only they can access?
Selling 12.5% of your revenue ( not profit ) for EVER ( with the other party taking no risk - because at 6.7% they are in the gravy ) is not something a normal business person would ever do. And this is not a normal business, it’s a sport that belongs to everyone. Not some corporate raiders.
-
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The only credit I will give Rob Nicol is the fact he is winning the charm offensive hands down ,
Is he? Being out of the country I'm missing that.
I'll once again reiterate my position in that the Silver Lake deal is a guaranteed lump sum capital investment for an agreed percentage return, with a win-win based on increasing revenue through avenues that the investors have available to them.
The FSB deal seems to be a nebulous, hoped for investment, appealing to people who are already heavily invested in NZ rugby, without a clear plan to increase revenue.
Anyone remember that failed campaign in the early/mid 90s under that idiot David Moffett where you could ring a 0900 number to "donate" $5 to "club rugby". Seemed like a good idea. But the people who would be prepared to send $5 to club rugby were already up to their eye balls in membership fees, volunteering, sponsoring etc etc.
Mum and Dad investors aren't buying into this as they're already a part if it.
Can't see institutional investors buying in as they just want the return, without the effort to try and increase that revenue.
And again, the only part of this equation whose only responsibility is to maximise the return for the individuals within it's membership is the only stakeholder resisting the deal.
It’s Silverlake that get the guaranteed return. 6.7%. Then it’s the NZRFU that is funding the new company. It’s a startup so there is risk which is 100% with the NZRFU.
So exactly what commercial agreements and IP will Silverlake provide to this new company? We have heard they will be allowed to advertise on Twitter ( along with everyone else ) and they can build some Rugby games ( as anyone can ). Where are the new deals that only they can access?
Selling 12.5% of your revenue ( not profit ) for EVER ( with the other party taking no risk - because at 6.7% they are in the gravy ) is not something a normal business person would ever do. And this is not a normal business, it’s a sport that belongs to everyone. Not some corporate raiders.
Sorry. Didn't phrase that well. There is an agreed percentage for the investor in the SL deal, but an unknown for the investor in the public float.
-
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Selling 12.5% of your revenue ( not profit ) for EVER ( with the other party taking no risk - because at 6.7% they are in the gravy ) is not something a normal business person would ever do. And this is not a normal business, it’s a sport that belongs to everyone. Not some corporate raiders.
the other party is taking a risk with the capital they are investing.
Them making money is dependent on NZR remaining profitable, surely? I mean, if NZR go under, they lose too.
-
@taniwharugby said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Selling 12.5% of your revenue ( not profit ) for EVER ( with the other party taking no risk - because at 6.7% they are in the gravy ) is not something a normal business person would ever do. And this is not a normal business, it’s a sport that belongs to everyone. Not some corporate raiders.
the other party is taking a risk with the capital they are investing.
Them making money is dependent on NZR remaining profitable, surely? I mean, if NZR go under, they lose too.
They get revenue % so their risks are much reduced if any.
-
Another question is what is NZRU planning to do with its new found reserves?
$40m to new company to grow revenue, $40m to Provinces. Leaves another $300m to do what? Apparently this is desperately needed....but maybe not all of it....right now. I know the thinking might be taking it while it’s on offer but giving up so much revenue for EVER is an over reach by current administration.
-
@steven-harris said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Price Waterhouse Cooper also looked over the deal and said
The opinions of graduates managed by someone who has never actually run a business isn't worth a bucket of warm piss. And as anyone who has whored themselves out as a consultant knows; you never write the report until you know what the paying client wants to hear.
-
OK. Let's solve this.
Assume conservative revenue base is $175m p.a..
Sell royalty over 12.5% revenue up to, say, $180m p.a. in a tax efficient fashion, perhaps via pension fund/listed vehicle.
That's $22.5m p.a. income. Let's assume 4.5% yield equals $500m.
Then set up jv with SL whereby SL gets royalty equal to 25% of revenue OVER $180m p.a.. Initial SL investment, say, $30m. Maybe NZR matches that.
NZR gets long term patient capital, significantly higher proceeds, and retains access to SL commercial expertise.
SL gets association with one of sport's greatest teams, reduced investment but enhanced share of the growth it helps to generate.
MUCH BETTER!
And if SL won't play ball it can only suggest there's more to it's existing deal than it's letting on.
-
@pakman said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
OK. Let's solve this.
Assume conservative revenue base is $175m p.a..
Sell royalty over 12.5% revenue up to, say, $180m p.a. in a tax efficient fashion, perhaps via pension fund/listed vehicle.
That's $22.5m p.a. income. Let's assume 4.5% yield equals $500m.
Then set up jv with SL whereby SL gets royalty equal to 25% of revenue OVER $180m p.a.. Initial SL investment, say, $30m. Maybe NZR matches that.
NZR gets long term patient capital, significantly higher proceeds, and retains access to SL commercial expertise.
SL gets association with one of sport's greatest teams, reduced investment but enhanced share of the growth it helps to generate.
MUCH BETTER!
And if SL won't play ball it can only suggest there's more to it's existing deal than it's letting on.
Sharing in revenue “growth” is a much better deal for us. If we could get it I would like to see current broadcasting rights excluded but give them a higher % of the new marketing company and take less money up front. The more i think about we have really been sold a turkey and these guys will think it’s Xmas.
