Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?
-
@snowy said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@bovidae said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Silver Lake are behind the UFC so I assume maximising the worldwide PPV audience is one of the main potential income streams.
As to taking out a loan, NZR has stated why that isn't possible - they have no assets to secure the loan against.
But why do they need $387m now. Putting money into reserves earns you nothing?
Didn't they used to earn money on reserves with investments in currency?
They would have protected against movements where exposed but damn sure they wouldn’t be trading.
That’s the type of shit which brings down businesses.
I just remember them making a decent amount on something they did with how they got paid and what currency it was held in.
Like Homer, I’ve learned something and it’s pushed shit out of my brain.
I haven't read all of the above so might Booboo but yes they were hedging currency risk as TB revenues weren't in NZD IIRC, They ended up with a gain from it.
Yup millions from holding it in USD
@snowy said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@bovidae said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Silver Lake are behind the UFC so I assume maximising the worldwide PPV audience is one of the main potential income streams.
As to taking out a loan, NZR has stated why that isn't possible - they have no assets to secure the loan against.
But why do they need $387m now. Putting money into reserves earns you nothing?
Didn't they used to earn money on reserves with investments in currency?
They would have protected against movements where exposed but damn sure they wouldn’t be trading.
That’s the type of shit which brings down businesses.
I just remember them making a decent amount on something they did with how they got paid and what currency it was held in.
Like Homer, I’ve learned something and it’s pushed shit out of my brain.
I haven't read all of the above so might Booboo but yes they were hedging currency risk as TB revenues weren't in NZD IIRC, They ended up with a gain from it.
Yup millions from holding payments in USD
-
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@machpants the threat of players wages is over stated. We are not at some sort of crisis or tipping point. Sure it’s been a trend but they don’t need $380m and selling 12.5% of your revenue for ever is stupid. No one does that.
It's not stupid at all, 6N and other comps have already done it, selling much higher percentages. Flat out calling what NZR is proposing as stupid or whatever is internet talk. NZR have done their homework, they know all the numbers much better than us, and they think it is the best way going forward. As I said, I don't know, I'm worried about the deal, but blanket 'it's stupid' statements are disrespectful and themselves stupid.
Ok then. I think it is really really stupid. Tell me exactly what 6 Nations rugby have done - it’s the structure of these deals that is important.
Selling your current secure revenues for new uncertain revenues where the purchaser has all their downside risk mitigated, and where you will employ new unknown 3rd parties to create these new revenues doesn’t sound smart. It’s NZRFU who is taking all the risk - in return it’s getting more money than it needs which will sit in reserves.
The focus in this discussion shouldn’t be on the money, it should be on what this new business model is. If that doesn’t work then it’s a really bad deal. CRICHQ comes to mind. This stuff is hard and risky.
What are these new revenues? Rugby’s traditional revenues streams are competitions, tickets and broadcasting rights. Things like merchandise can grow from that over time but others can do that. The story is not clear - what does access to new markets really mean? gaming ....? Is this partner the right one for this new business?
-
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@snowy said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@bovidae said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Silver Lake are behind the UFC so I assume maximising the worldwide PPV audience is one of the main potential income streams.
As to taking out a loan, NZR has stated why that isn't possible - they have no assets to secure the loan against.
But why do they need $387m now. Putting money into reserves earns you nothing?
Didn't they used to earn money on reserves with investments in currency?
They would have protected against movements where exposed but damn sure they wouldn’t be trading.
That’s the type of shit which brings down businesses.
I just remember them making a decent amount on something they did with how they got paid and what currency it was held in.
Like Homer, I’ve learned something and it’s pushed shit out of my brain.
I haven't read all of the above so might Booboo but yes they were hedging currency risk as TB revenues weren't in NZD IIRC, They ended up with a gain from it.
Yup millions from holding it in USD
@snowy said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@bovidae said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Silver Lake are behind the UFC so I assume maximising the worldwide PPV audience is one of the main potential income streams.
As to taking out a loan, NZR has stated why that isn't possible - they have no assets to secure the loan against.
But why do they need $387m now. Putting money into reserves earns you nothing?
Didn't they used to earn money on reserves with investments in currency?
They would have protected against movements where exposed but damn sure they wouldn’t be trading.
That’s the type of shit which brings down businesses.
I just remember them making a decent amount on something they did with how they got paid and what currency it was held in.
Like Homer, I’ve learned something and it’s pushed shit out of my brain.
I haven't read all of the above so might Booboo but yes they were hedging currency risk as TB revenues weren't in NZD IIRC, They ended up with a gain from it.
Yup millions from holding payments in USD
Did you #booboo yourself in the same post? Impressive
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@snowy said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@bovidae said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Silver Lake are behind the UFC so I assume maximising the worldwide PPV audience is one of the main potential income streams.
As to taking out a loan, NZR has stated why that isn't possible - they have no assets to secure the loan against.
But why do they need $387m now. Putting money into reserves earns you nothing?
Didn't they used to earn money on reserves with investments in currency?
They would have protected against movements where exposed but damn sure they wouldn’t be trading.
That’s the type of shit which brings down businesses.
I just remember them making a decent amount on something they did with how they got paid and what currency it was held in.
Like Homer, I’ve learned something and it’s pushed shit out of my brain.
I haven't read all of the above so might Booboo but yes they were hedging currency risk as TB revenues weren't in NZD IIRC, They ended up with a gain from it.
Yup millions from holding it in USD
@snowy said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kirwan said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@bovidae said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Silver Lake are behind the UFC so I assume maximising the worldwide PPV audience is one of the main potential income streams.
As to taking out a loan, NZR has stated why that isn't possible - they have no assets to secure the loan against.
But why do they need $387m now. Putting money into reserves earns you nothing?
Didn't they used to earn money on reserves with investments in currency?
They would have protected against movements where exposed but damn sure they wouldn’t be trading.
That’s the type of shit which brings down businesses.
I just remember them making a decent amount on something they did with how they got paid and what currency it was held in.
Like Homer, I’ve learned something and it’s pushed shit out of my brain.
I haven't read all of the above so might Booboo but yes they were hedging currency risk as TB revenues weren't in NZD IIRC, They ended up with a gain from it.
Yup millions from holding payments in USD
Did you #booboo yourself in the same post? Impressive
I blame the interweb gremlins
-
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@machpants the threat of players wages is over stated. We are not at some sort of crisis or tipping point. Sure it’s been a trend but they don’t need $380m and selling 12.5% of your revenue for ever is stupid. No one does that.
It's not stupid at all, 6N and other comps have already done it, selling much higher percentages. Flat out calling what NZR is proposing as stupid or whatever is internet talk. NZR have done their homework, they know all the numbers much better than us, and they think it is the best way going forward. As I said, I don't know, I'm worried about the deal, but blanket 'it's stupid' statements are disrespectful and themselves stupid.
Point is that the exisiting revenue will be worth more to a party other than Silver Lake. If the USP of SL is growing revenue base then incentivise them on growth.
Fair chance with existing deal Sl will securitise some of revenue stream anyway to recuperate much if not all of investment.
Perhaps NZR should have a chat to Goldman.
-
I was reading this article by Knowler in the newspaper over the weekend, which provides more detail about the Silver Lake proposal. Stuff has finally published it online.
-
The link appears to be corrupted so text below.
EXPLAINER: Is it worth New Zealand club players, fans and administrators losing sleep over the stoush between NZ Rugby and New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association.
Around 158,000 amateur men, women, boys and girls, backed by a small army of volunteers, family and supporters, trek to rugby fields each weekend simply because they love the game. The words Silver Lake may mean a variety of things to those people, who are the soul of the national sport at the grassroots level. Some may not care that NZ Rugby can’t convince the NZRPA to endorse a deal with US investment giant Silver Lake, which will pay $387.5 million for a 12.5 percent of its net profit. Or, for that matter, care that NZRPA have commissioned an alternative plan with Forsyth Barr which would mean selling 5 percent of NZ Rugby’s revenue-gathering assets to the public and Kiwi institutions via a stock exchange-listed entity. Others from club-land may be much more engaged. Or embarrassed by the way this saga has unfolded in the public eye. Everyone would probably agree on one thing, at least: the future of the game belongs to the generations of Kiwis who have invested time and energy into the sport at all levels. And that starts with the clubs, tiny or large, rich or poor, throughout the country.
Let’s talk about money. If NZ Rugby can get the Silver Lake deal across the line, how would that 26 benefit provincial unions and almost 500 clubs?
If the Silver Lake deal was approved, $39 million would be distributed to the provinces and the NZ Maori board. Provincial unions, whose representatives voted in favour of the Silver Lake deal, would welcome the chance to ease the financial pressure and use that money to develop the amateur game. NZ Rugby wants to invest more in the grassroots and, currently, only about 20 percent of its income gets funnelled in that direction. Roughly speaking, that means around $30m goes to the community game, while about $120 million gets splashed on the professional arm. NZ Rugby also wants to put $100m into a long-term Legacy Fund which would be set-up to hold sufficient cash reserves for investment in the community game.How does the Legacy Fund work?
The Legacy Fund is an endowment fund that NZ Rugby wants to create to support the long-term sustainability of the game. With capital from Silver Lake, and future profits, it hopes to grow the fund to over $200m in the next couple of years. It’s intended for the $200m capital to remain in the fund for the long-term benefits of the sport. The annual returns on the fund, and NZ Rugby’s profits, would then be reinvested back into the community through investment in capital projects, such as support for new facilities in local communities. For example, if a club wanted to build new clubrooms or a toilet block it could apply to its provincial union to receive money from the Legacy Fund. NZ Rugby also aims to invest more in the female, Māori and Pasifika sides of the game, as well as do more around teenage recruitment.Forsyth Barr has provided an alternative option to the Silver Lake offer. How would that benefit the provinces and clubs?
Forsyth Barr, which has valued NZ Rugby at $3.8 billion (compared to Silver Lake’s valuation of around $3.1 billion), proposed the sale of a 5 percent stake in future commercial revenues through an NZX listing. Based on that valuation, Forsyth Barr believes between $170m-$190m could be raised. Under the NZRPA/Forsyth Barr model $39m would also be distributed to the provinces and the NZ Māori board. However, it wouldn’t set up a Legacy Fund. “Rather than relying on interest income from a Legacy Fund to benefit the community game, NZR retains an additional 7.5 percent of revenue,’’ NZRPA stated in a letter delivered to NZ Rugby and provincial unions last week. It also stated that “over time’’ NZ Rugby, given starting reserves of $136-$154 million, would be able to establish a Legacy Fund.Why should anyone affiliated to a club in New Zealand care about the Silver Lake saga?
At the end of the day it is about control. Silver Lake is in this to make money. No-one should be naive enough to think otherwise. NZ Rugby’s job, whether it be its employees or board members, is to serve all the game’s stakeholders. It's taking a calculated risk by hopping into bed with Silver Lake and hasn’t denied it. But NZ Rugby says it must be prepared to be bold to save the game. NZRPA, which is headed by chief executive Rob Nichol and chairman David Kirk, represents around 270 professional players who, in turn, should expect to be held accountable by the rugby public at all levels. Because if it wasn't for the clubs the current All Blacks, Black Ferns, Super Rugby and sevens players wouldn’t have got a taste for the game that now pays their wages.Since the game went professional in late 1995, money began to flow into the pockets of the players (and administrators) who represented the international, Super Rugby, sevens and provincial teams – thanks to the central contacting system. NZ Rugby picks up the tab for the All Blacks, Super Rugby, Black Ferns and sevens players. It's important to remember, however, that the provincial unions have to pay the wages of their contracted players. And it was the clubs who nurtured them in the first instance. The professional side of the game, and at 1st XV level, is in reasonable shape. But there are concerns about how clubs will fare, and keeping teenagers in the game is a major issue, in the years ahead.
Why is NZ Rugby so obsessed with a private equity deal?
It says it needs money to survive. NZ Rugby says its current model is unsustainable. In their own words, it is “broken’’. If that is the case (and the NZRPA disputes this), then the clubs should be worried. NZ Rugby, outside of when the British and Irish Lions tour every 12 years, struggles to make a profit. NZ Rugby annually ships about $30m to the 26 provincial unions. Amounts vary for each of the unions, depending on a variety of factors, including the number of registered players on their books. NZ Rugby's funding of the provincial unions is split two ways. “Untagged” funding can be spent at the discretion of the provincial unions, while “tagged” funding is granted for specific purposes. If provincial unions receive less money from NZ Rugby, they have to cut costs to survive or find money from somewhere else. Which isn’t good for the clubs.Many feel a deep connection to our top rugby players, especially the All Blacks. Is there a chance the Silver Lake deal, would result in players leaving New Zealand?
Kirk told RNZ last Tuesday that some players had advised NZRPA they wouldn’t want to play in New Zealand if the Silver Lake deal goes ahead. “It is absolutely a worry,’’ Kirk said. “I don’t know what the fans' reaction is going to be. “I know some of the players have said to us ‘I don’t want to play – I don’t want to lace up my boots and play for business owned 12.5 percent (by Silver Lake, who will have the rights to monetise what the players are doing).’’The players, meanwhile, have been mostly evasive when questioned on the topic by reporters. NZ Rugby says the players should have nothing to fear. Silver Lake won’t have a presence on the NZ Rugby board. And the players, NZ Rugby says, won't take a pay cut if the deal goes ahead. If anything, it has stated, they should be better off.
If the Silver Lake deal is approved, will it mean the All Blacks will have to play more games?
NZ Rugby has said no. If anything, the All Blacks will play the same amount of tests each year or fewer. It is adamant player welfare under any new agreement would be paramount. NZ Rugby also disputes suggestions the All Blacks will become a travelling circus and be dragged to far-flung locations to appease Silver Lake’s desire to tap into markets. Tight “controls’’ in a contract would ensure this doesn’t happen, says NZ Rugby. There are concerns, however, that NZ Rugby could be forced to change its stance if a private equity partner doesn’t believe it’s squeezing enough money out of the partnership.The NZRPA has concerns about “cultural misappropriation’’ if Silver Lake is welcomed into the NZ Rugby tent. Is there a risk the haka could be exploited?
NZ Rugby says no. NZ Māori Rugby Board chair Farah Palmer has said protecting the haka would be a major priority. There will likely be “protections’’ within a legal document. Kirk, however, told RNZ that while NZ Rugby will have controls that isn’t to say the haka couldn’t be commercialised, because when a business brings in private equity partners their only motivation is to make money. -
Two points with this ...
@bovidae said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Some may not care that NZ Rugby can’t convince the NZRPA to endorse a deal with US investment giant Silver Lake, which will pay $387.5 million for a 12.5 percent of its net profit.
Pretty sure it's gross profit not net. (Just stating that for fairness, as I'm obviously on record in favour of the SL deal.(
Kirk said. “I don’t know what the fans' reaction is going to be. “I know some of the players have said to us ‘I don’t want to play – I don’t want to lace up my boots and play for business owned 12.5 percent (by Silver Lake, who will have the rights to monetise what the players are doing).’’
Then fuck off overseas where you can get your mercenary $$ from whomever the hell you want, without a single cent of that being invested in NZ rugby , unlike if SL invests heavily in the long term future of the game here.
An obvious, and rather weak, attempt at emotional blackmail.
-
@bovidae said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The NZRPA has concerns about “cultural misappropriation’’ if Silver Lake is welcomed into the NZ Rugby tent. Is there a risk the haka could be exploited?
If they wanted a haka to slap on a commercial, I'm pretty sure they could get one for less than $387.5m
This is the most disingenuous of NZRPAs arguments. Who made NZR the guardians of tikaga Maori? I've got a mate in UK who makes a living selling haka workshops to corporate Europeans and Yanks and has done for the last 10 years (at least). There are much cheaper ways to get Ka Mate
.I would only ask NZRPA one question - what happens if their capital raise falls well short of their proposal?
e.g. If clubs were forced to merge or call time as a result of the funding shortage or the women's game fails to get the required development support — will they put their hand up and shell out to support the grassroots, or would they turn the other cheek?
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Kirk said. “I don’t know what the fans' reaction is going to be. “I know some of the players have said to us ‘I don’t want to play – I don’t want to lace up my boots and play for business owned 12.5 percent (by Silver Lake, who will have the rights to monetise what the players are doing).’’
yeah that comment is hilarious! I mean if they dont play for NZR which is then 12.5% owned by a business, do they then work for the Comic Book guy or others like him?
I expect NZR telling that SA school to stop doing the haka was a pointer for this whole saga!
-
A third sale option for NZ Rugby to consider
New Zealand Rugby is being urged to consider a third option, before it signs away a stake of its commercial rights with US private equity firm Silver Lake. A group led by former NZR chief executive David Moffett is proposing a co-operative ownership model similar to European football giants Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich and NFL side the Green Bay Packers. Under the Silver Lake deal NZR would set up a company called Commercial Co which would own NZR's commercial rights. Silver Lake would take a 12.5 stake in this for $390 million. The Players Association (NZRPA) is opposed to deal, saying the numbers don't add up and that selling off 12.5 percent in perpetuity doesn't make financial sense, leading to a bitter dispute between the two parties. The NZRPA agrees the game needs a substantial cash injection and along with investment company Forysth Barr are proposing a public share float which it estimates could raise $190 million. NZR has rejected a public share float believing it would only appeal to 'mum and dad' investors and doesn't meet other criteria the Silver Lake deal does. Moffett, who was chief executive of the NZR between 1996-2000 and has also held the same role with the Australian NRL and Welsh Rugby Union, believes a co-operative model is the way forward. "Both (the Silver Lake and NZRPA share float proposals) have merit but neither of them really satisfies the aspirations of rugby fans or the wider public who would like to see the full control of rugby and especially the All Blacks stay in New Zealand ownership. "There are many questions to be answered about the Silver Lake offer... (we) request of the NZR a full and frank disclosure of the proposed deal, so that the fans and people of New Zealand can be better informed. "In respect of the proposed IPO by the NZRPA, we are concerned that if the listing were to go ahead, what if any safeguards can be put in place to stop Silver Lake, Rugby Australia or any other non-invited entity from accumulating the bulk of shares in the public company," said Moffett. Co-operatives are familiar to the New Zealand business community said Moffett citing the likes of Fonterra, Southern Cross and Farmlands. "This common form of corporate ownership in New Zealand does not carry the listed public company requirements of compliance and share price and market risk," he said. Moffett suggests a co-op could raise similar levels of funding to the Forsyth Barr share float proposal. "Indeed, it is entirely possible....the capital raise suggested in an IPO could be exceeded. But equally as important, the cost of sourcing and servicing the capital and repayments will be substantially less than the other options -which will mean more finds available to NZR." The fundamental difference with a co-operative said Moffett is that the organisation can develops its own rules and regulations to meet the needs of their members - a key objective when dealing with the unique nature of sports. It is based on a vote per member not the number of shares held - therefore no one group can acquire a controlling interest A co-operative doesn't require cash dividends but rather provides members benefits and there can be different classes of shares-membership that allows a differentiation of the type of investment meaning their there could be a range of classes including Super Rugby Franchises, Provincial Unions, Player Associations, and Public for example. "The motivation for putting forward this option is that, given the significance and relative permanence of the decision and its subsequent consequences, we believe it is imperative that all options are on the table and given appropriate consideration, to ensure that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the final decision is made with full consideration of all options available, along with their relative benefits and risks." -
The bit about Silverlake that no other option offers is the so called expertise available to grow the game and open other markets. That's the bit that detractors should be targeting/questioning.
I totally get that growing the market and revenue is a big thing for NZR but the SL deal seems to sell off revenue to possibly gain more of it.
That, to me, is the bit that they haven't sold properly to stakeholders. We have seen that an injection of $ is possibly available other ways. Where are the concrete proposals about the growth factors? -
@crucial said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The bit about Silverlake that no other option offers is the so called expertise available to grow the game and open other markets. That's the bit that detractors should be targeting/questioning.
I totally get that growing the market and revenue is a big thing for NZR but the SL deal seems to sell off revenue to possibly gain more of it.
That, to me, is the bit that they haven't sold properly to stakeholders. We have seen that an injection of $ is possibly available other ways. Where are the concrete proposals about the growth factors?Stakeholder
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@crucial said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The bit about Silverlake that no other option offers is the so called expertise available to grow the game and open other markets. That's the bit that detractors should be targeting/questioning.
I totally get that growing the market and revenue is a big thing for NZR but the SL deal seems to sell off revenue to possibly gain more of it.
That, to me, is the bit that they haven't sold properly to stakeholders. We have seen that an injection of $ is possibly available other ways. Where are the concrete proposals about the growth factors?Stakeholder
Nah, I used plural as I don't think much of the rugby public is fully behind them either.
I just think that they really underestimated the resistance to selling the ABs to an overseas company and could have done a much better job on communicating the deal.
There looks to be a 'we know best' sniff of arrogance that isn't doing them any favours. -
@crucial said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The bit about Silverlake that no other option offers is the so called expertise available to grow the game and open other markets. That's the bit that detractors should be targeting/questioning.
I totally get that growing the market and revenue is a big thing for NZR but the SL deal seems to sell off revenue to possibly gain more of it.
That, to me, is the bit that they haven't sold properly to stakeholders. We have seen that an injection of $ is possibly available other ways. Where are the concrete proposals about the growth factors?That is the heart of it. New businesses fail all the time. Especially when they need to create brand new revenue. CRICHQ was the most recent example in this space. Don’t sell the family heirlooms on a promise. Silverwater have structured the deal so they have no downside risk if the business fails.
-
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@crucial said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The bit about Silverlake that no other option offers is the so called expertise available to grow the game and open other markets. That's the bit that detractors should be targeting/questioning.
I totally get that growing the market and revenue is a big thing for NZR but the SL deal seems to sell off revenue to possibly gain more of it.
That, to me, is the bit that they haven't sold properly to stakeholders. We have seen that an injection of $ is possibly available other ways. Where are the concrete proposals about the growth factors?That is the heart of it. New businesses fail all the time. Especially when they need to create brand new revenue. CRICHQ was the most recent example in this space. Don’t sell the family heirlooms on a promise. Silverwater have structured the deal so they have no downside risk if the business fails.
If the business fails despite SL's cash injection, then NZR's assets will be sold at deep discounts to cover their debts. SL's 12.5% share of those assets will also be written down, likely to much less than the $387.5m they paid for them. The future revenue growth would also be gone. So I don't see how you can claim SL have no downside risk?
-
@tewaio said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@crucial said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The bit about Silverlake that no other option offers is the so called expertise available to grow the game and open other markets. That's the bit that detractors should be targeting/questioning.
I totally get that growing the market and revenue is a big thing for NZR but the SL deal seems to sell off revenue to possibly gain more of it.
That, to me, is the bit that they haven't sold properly to stakeholders. We have seen that an injection of $ is possibly available other ways. Where are the concrete proposals about the growth factors?That is the heart of it. New businesses fail all the time. Especially when they need to create brand new revenue. CRICHQ was the most recent example in this space. Don’t sell the family heirlooms on a promise. Silverwater have structured the deal so they have no downside risk if the business fails.
If the business fails despite SL's cash injection, then NZR's assets will be sold at deep discounts to cover their debts. SL's 12.5% share of those assets will also be written down, likely to much less than the $387.5m they paid for them. The future revenue growth would also be gone. So I don't see how you can claim SL have no downside risk?
There's no assets to sell, in real money terms. That's why NZR can't get a decent loan, nothing to secure it against
-
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@tewaio said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@crucial said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The bit about Silverlake that no other option offers is the so called expertise available to grow the game and open other markets. That's the bit that detractors should be targeting/questioning.
I totally get that growing the market and revenue is a big thing for NZR but the SL deal seems to sell off revenue to possibly gain more of it.
That, to me, is the bit that they haven't sold properly to stakeholders. We have seen that an injection of $ is possibly available other ways. Where are the concrete proposals about the growth factors?That is the heart of it. New businesses fail all the time. Especially when they need to create brand new revenue. CRICHQ was the most recent example in this space. Don’t sell the family heirlooms on a promise. Silverwater have structured the deal so they have no downside risk if the business fails.
If the business fails despite SL's cash injection, then NZR's assets will be sold at deep discounts to cover their debts. SL's 12.5% share of those assets will also be written down, likely to much less than the $387.5m they paid for them. The future revenue growth would also be gone. So I don't see how you can claim SL have no downside risk?
There's no assets to sell, in real money terms. That's why NZR can't get a decent loan, nothing to secure it against
Exactly... the All Blacks "brand" isn't worth much if NZR goes bust and can't pay players anymore. So various posters and commentators saying SL has no downside risk are not correct.
Is the deal definitely for 12.5% of revenue, not net income? I've read both reported in various forms of media.
-
as I recall BMW and VW fought over the Rolls Royce name, one company had the staff and factories, the other had rights to the name. The name alone can be worth something...
