Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The McGod has spoken against the Silver Lake deal. Listen to the GOAT, folks, listen to the GOAT.
Good rugby player.
How's his corporate financial acumen? Genuine question.
Weird post.
Great Rugby Player. Nothing wrong with his intellect or his financial acumen as far as I'm aware. Invested more in the Black Jersey than the rest of us.
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The McGod has spoken against the Silver Lake deal. Listen to the GOAT, folks, listen to the GOAT.
Good rugby player.
How's his corporate financial acumen? Genuine question.
Weird post.
Great Rugby Player. Nothing wrong with his intellect or his financial acumen as far as I'm aware. Invested more in the Black Jersey than the rest of us.
Why is it weird?
Is a genuine question.
Why do you think that "Richie" speaks means that he has any idea how the deal works? He may, but how?
Weider that you think he is an expert in international finance and marketing just because he was a decent footy player.
I'll acknowledge he is invested and across corporate financials in his participation in the retirement industry.
I'll acknowledge that he is invested in "The Black Jersey". But is he invested in the not for profit areas of NZ rugby?
What gets me about this issue is that the ONLY body which is against the deal is the only part of NZ rugby which exists to benefit its members directly. Each provincial union, and the NZ Maori have all voted in favour. And they exist for the not for profit side if the organisation.
It just stinks of the players chasing dollars to me.
-
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The McGod has spoken against the Silver Lake deal. Listen to the GOAT, folks, listen to the GOAT.
Good rugby player.
How's his corporate financial acumen? Genuine question.
Weird post.
Great Rugby Player. Nothing wrong with his intellect or his financial acumen as far as I'm aware. Invested more in the Black Jersey than the rest of us.
Why is it weird?
Is a genuine question.
Why do you think that "Richie" speaks means that he has any idea how the deal works? He may, but how?
Weider that you think he is an expert in international finance and marketing just because he was a decent footy player.
I'll acknowledge he is invested and across corporate financials in his participation in the retirement industry.
I'll acknowledge that he is invested in "The Black Jersey". But is he invested in the not for profit areas of NZ rugby?
What gets me about this issue is that the ONLY body which is against the deal is the only part of NZ rugby which exists to benefit its members directly. Each provincial union, and the NZ Maori have all voted in favour. And they exist for the not for profit side if the organisation.
It just stinks of the players chasing dollars to me.
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The McGod has spoken against the Silver Lake deal. Listen to the GOAT, folks, listen to the GOAT.
Good rugby player.
How's his corporate financial acumen? Genuine question.
Weird post.
Great Rugby Player. Nothing wrong with his intellect or his financial acumen as far as I'm aware. Invested more in the Black Jersey than the rest of us.
Why is it weird?
Is a genuine question.
Why do you think that "Richie" speaks means that he has any idea how the deal works? He may, but how?
Weider that you think he is an expert in international finance and marketing just because he was a decent footy player.
I'll acknowledge he is invested and across corporate financials in his participation in the retirement industry.
I'll acknowledge that he is invested in "The Black Jersey". But is he invested in the not for profit areas of NZ rugby?
What gets me about this issue is that the ONLY body which is against the deal is the only part of NZ rugby which exists to benefit its members directly. Each provincial union, and the NZ Maori have all voted in favour. And they exist for the not for profit side if the organisation.
It just stinks of the players chasing dollars to me.
Funnily enough, because they don't stand to directly benefit from the short sugar hit, I trust them more.
-
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The McGod has spoken against the Silver Lake deal. Listen to the GOAT, folks, listen to the GOAT.
Good rugby player.
How's his corporate financial acumen? Genuine question.
Weird post.
Great Rugby Player. Nothing wrong with his intellect or his financial acumen as far as I'm aware. Invested more in the Black Jersey than the rest of us.
Why is it weird?
Is a genuine question.
Why do you think that "Richie" speaks means that he has any idea how the deal works? He may, but how?
Weider that you think he is an expert in international finance and marketing just because he was a decent footy player.
I'll acknowledge he is invested and across corporate financials in his participation in the retirement industry.
I'll acknowledge that he is invested in "The Black Jersey". But is he invested in the not for profit areas of NZ rugby?
What gets me about this issue is that the ONLY body which is against the deal is the only part of NZ rugby which exists to benefit its members directly. Each provincial union, and the NZ Maori have all voted in favour. And they exist for the not for profit side if the organisation.
It just stinks of the players chasing dollars to me.
-
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The McGod has spoken against the Silver Lake deal. Listen to the GOAT, folks, listen to the GOAT.
Good rugby player.
How's his corporate financial acumen? Genuine question.
Weird post.
Great Rugby Player. Nothing wrong with his intellect or his financial acumen as far as I'm aware. Invested more in the Black Jersey than the rest of us.
Why is it weird?
Is a genuine question.
Why do you think that "Richie" speaks means that he has any idea how the deal works? He may, but how?
Weider that you think he is an expert in international finance and marketing just because he was a decent footy player.
I'll acknowledge he is invested and across corporate financials in his participation in the retirement industry.
I'll acknowledge that he is invested in "The Black Jersey". But is he invested in the not for profit areas of NZ rugby?
What gets me about this issue is that the ONLY body which is against the deal is the only part of NZ rugby which exists to benefit its members directly. Each provincial union, and the NZ Maori have all voted in favour. And they exist for the not for profit side if the organisation.
It just stinks of the players chasing dollars to me.
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The McGod has spoken against the Silver Lake deal. Listen to the GOAT, folks, listen to the GOAT.
Good rugby player.
How's his corporate financial acumen? Genuine question.
Weird post.
Great Rugby Player. Nothing wrong with his intellect or his financial acumen as far as I'm aware. Invested more in the Black Jersey than the rest of us.
Why is it weird?
Is a genuine question.
Why do you think that "Richie" speaks means that he has any idea how the deal works? He may, but how?
Weider that you think he is an expert in international finance and marketing just because he was a decent footy player.
I'll acknowledge he is invested and across corporate financials in his participation in the retirement industry.
I'll acknowledge that he is invested in "The Black Jersey". But is he invested in the not for profit areas of NZ rugby?
What gets me about this issue is that the ONLY body which is against the deal is the only part of NZ rugby which exists to benefit its members directly. Each provincial union, and the NZ Maori have all voted in favour. And they exist for the not for profit side if the organisation.
It just stinks of the players chasing dollars to me.
Funny I see it the other way. The NZRFU seem to to want chase the $. The short term sugar of what seems a large amount. They have always presented this as the only option, done deal. The feeling for me is that they expected all the stakeholders just to fall in line. They have tried to throw the players under the bus at every turn. Mark Robinsons tenure has been marked by impatience and the inability to work with others.
-
Basic business. Dont sell your IP.
If your profits arent good enough change your board -
Basic business. Dont sell your IP.
If your profits arent good enough change your board@berniescorner said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Basic business. Dont sell your IP.
If your profits arent good enough change your boardThat was my point in an earlier post but you are much more concise..
-
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@booboo said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@sparky said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
The McGod has spoken against the Silver Lake deal. Listen to the GOAT, folks, listen to the GOAT.
Good rugby player.
How's his corporate financial acumen? Genuine question.
Weird post.
Great Rugby Player. Nothing wrong with his intellect or his financial acumen as far as I'm aware. Invested more in the Black Jersey than the rest of us.
Why is it weird?
Is a genuine question.
Why do you think that "Richie" speaks means that he has any idea how the deal works? He may, but how?
Weider that you think he is an expert in international finance and marketing just because he was a decent footy player.
I'll acknowledge he is invested and across corporate financials in his participation in the retirement industry.
I'll acknowledge that he is invested in "The Black Jersey". But is he invested in the not for profit areas of NZ rugby?
What gets me about this issue is that the ONLY body which is against the deal is the only part of NZ rugby which exists to benefit its members directly. Each provincial union, and the NZ Maori have all voted in favour. And they exist for the not for profit side if the organisation.
It just stinks of the players chasing dollars to me.
Funny I see it the other way. The NZRFU seem to to want chase the $. The short term sugar of what seems a large amount. They have always presented this as the only option, done deal. The feeling for me is that they expected all the stakeholders just to fall in line. They have tried to throw the players under the bus at every turn. Mark Robinsons tenure has been marked by impatience and the inability to work with others.
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
-
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
I don't know whether I'd trust them any more than I'd trust the players, probably less. Where is their big business and investment acumen?
-
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
I don't know whether I'd trust them any more than I'd trust the players, probably less. Where is their big business and investment acumen?
@canefan Yeah but I trust the finacial people that ran through the scenarios that lead to this. Doesn't mean they are right and it is the only option, but they'll have don e their best to give the correct info to NZR. However someone is wrong with their numbers, either NZRs financial advisors or NZRPA's!
-
@canefan Yeah but I trust the finacial people that ran through the scenarios that lead to this. Doesn't mean they are right and it is the only option, but they'll have don e their best to give the correct info to NZR. However someone is wrong with their numbers, either NZRs financial advisors or NZRPA's!
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@canefan Yeah but I trust the finacial people that ran through the scenarios that lead to this. Doesn't mean they are right and it is the only option, but they'll have don e their best to give the correct info to NZR. However someone is wrong with their numbers, either NZRs financial advisors or NZRPA's!
-
Hopefully this is not just so NZR can say, we looked at it
-
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
I haven’t seen any mention of the other options? Please provide.
I still remember Northland and Ta$man being nominated to be permanently kicked out of top flight rugby by the management of NZRU. Same words used then. Forgive me if I doubt they have looked at all the options - just not possible. There are always more options - just depends on your mindset. Once we have sold 15% of our revenue to an overseas company who don’t care about Rugby we will never get it back.
I wonder if we have too many Businessmen on the board and we are just being told to drink the cool-aid. Most businesses are run on short term profitability objectives with high growth models, where selling assets to fund growth or for short term profit is part of business. I want a sustainable long term plan with NZ ownership all the way - non negotiable. Don’t care if the money is less in the short term.
-
When Kirk lifted the WC in 87 you saw a true NZer.
Give him a decent wedge of NZR IPO share options exercised in 5 years and let him get on with it.
In 5 years if you haven't sorted your grass roots the profit isn't going to be good.
The current NZR board are amateurs. -
Razor is a cut above the rest
-
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
I haven’t seen any mention of the other options? Please provide.
I still remember Northland and Ta$man being nominated to be permanently kicked out of top flight rugby by the management of NZRU. Same words used then. Forgive me if I doubt they have looked at all the options - just not possible. There are always more options - just depends on your mindset. Once we have sold 15% of our revenue to an overseas company who don’t care about Rugby we will never get it back.
I wonder if we have too many Businessmen on the board and we are just being told to drink the cool-aid. Most businesses are run on short term profitability objectives with high growth models, where selling assets to fund growth or for short term profit is part of business. I want a sustainable long term plan with NZ ownership all the way - non negotiable. Don’t care if the money is less in the short term.
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
I haven’t seen any mention of the other options? Please provide.
I still remember Northland and Ta$man being nominated to be permanently kicked out of top flight rugby by the management of NZRU. Same words used then. Forgive me if I doubt they have looked at all the options - just not possible. There are always more options - just depends on your mindset. Once we have sold 15% of our revenue to an overseas company who don’t care about Rugby we will never get it back.
I wonder if we have too many Businessmen on the board and we are just being told to drink the cool-aid. Most businesses are run on short term profitability objectives with high growth models, where selling assets to fund growth or for short term profit is part of business. I want a sustainable long term plan with NZ ownership all the way - non negotiable. Don’t care if the money is less in the short term.
Have a google, in one of their letters out they said they looked a public listing, raising loans etc. None of which ticked the same number of boxes that the SL deal did, so they went SL. I’d hope those reports were available to the stakeholders, even if not us, to see why they were discarded. For ex they said a loan woouldn’t work as NZR don;t have anywhere enough assets to secure it, etc.
-
This was probably posted back in the thread but worth another read in the current circumstances.
Reads like Knowler has been dined by NZRU to pitch the deal but if the facts are correct around the tightness and safeguards in the contract there seem to be a lot of the concerns ticked off.
My only query left (probably due to ignorance in these matters) is why selling 12.5% of an asset gives that shareholder 12.5% of income rather than profit?
I get why the NZRPA deal is struck that way. The concept is that the players are the commodity that generates the income and couldn't function if based on profit.
This deal seems to assume a lot about SL bringing more income to the books. -
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
I haven’t seen any mention of the other options? Please provide.
I still remember Northland and Ta$man being nominated to be permanently kicked out of top flight rugby by the management of NZRU. Same words used then. Forgive me if I doubt they have looked at all the options - just not possible. There are always more options - just depends on your mindset. Once we have sold 15% of our revenue to an overseas company who don’t care about Rugby we will never get it back.
I wonder if we have too many Businessmen on the board and we are just being told to drink the cool-aid. Most businesses are run on short term profitability objectives with high growth models, where selling assets to fund growth or for short term profit is part of business. I want a sustainable long term plan with NZ ownership all the way - non negotiable. Don’t care if the money is less in the short term.
Have a google, in one of their letters out they said they looked a public listing, raising loans etc. None of which ticked the same number of boxes that the SL deal did, so they went SL. I’d hope those reports were available to the stakeholders, even if not us, to see why they were discarded. For ex they said a loan woouldn’t work as NZR don;t have anywhere enough assets to secure it, etc.
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@kev said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
They have always presented this as the only option, done deal.
They have had their financial guys explore all the other options, and have mentioned them often. One would imagine the stakeholders got far more info about those discarded options than we have. Which sucks really, they need to engage the public as well as those that vote.
I haven’t seen any mention of the other options? Please provide.
I still remember Northland and Ta$man being nominated to be permanently kicked out of top flight rugby by the management of NZRU. Same words used then. Forgive me if I doubt they have looked at all the options - just not possible. There are always more options - just depends on your mindset. Once we have sold 15% of our revenue to an overseas company who don’t care about Rugby we will never get it back.
I wonder if we have too many Businessmen on the board and we are just being told to drink the cool-aid. Most businesses are run on short term profitability objectives with high growth models, where selling assets to fund growth or for short term profit is part of business. I want a sustainable long term plan with NZ ownership all the way - non negotiable. Don’t care if the money is less in the short term.
Have a google, in one of their letters out they said they looked a public listing, raising loans etc. None of which ticked the same number of boxes that the SL deal did, so they went SL. I’d hope those reports were available to the stakeholders, even if not us, to see why they were discarded. For ex they said a loan woouldn’t work as NZR don;t have anywhere enough assets to secure it, etc.
It all comes down to the options looked at and how they evaluated them. Regardless they didn’t manage the conversation with stakeholders, the same way they messed up the Super Rugby conversation.
-
As a guy who works for a union, it was a typical employer move - get everyone else on board with the big plan and ignore the workers until they can't be avoided and then try to railroad them with a fait accompli and then complain when the workers tell the employer to get stuffed and it turns out the employment agreement requires the workers' agreement.
What's particularly sad here is that nearly everyone is a rugby player, and the unions, NZR and RPA are all incorporated societies operating for the best for their members. This could and should have been done much earlier than it was.
-
This was probably posted back in the thread but worth another read in the current circumstances.
Reads like Knowler has been dined by NZRU to pitch the deal but if the facts are correct around the tightness and safeguards in the contract there seem to be a lot of the concerns ticked off.
My only query left (probably due to ignorance in these matters) is why selling 12.5% of an asset gives that shareholder 12.5% of income rather than profit?
I get why the NZRPA deal is struck that way. The concept is that the players are the commodity that generates the income and couldn't function if based on profit.
This deal seems to assume a lot about SL bringing more income to the books.@crucial said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
This was probably posted back in the thread but worth another read in the current circumstances.
Reads like Knowler has been dined by NZRU to pitch the deal but if the facts are correct around the tightness and safeguards in the contract there seem to be a lot of the concerns ticked off.
My only query left (probably due to ignorance in these matters) is why selling 12.5% of an asset gives that shareholder 12.5% of income rather than profit?
I get why the NZRPA deal is struck that way. The concept is that the players are the commodity that generates the income and couldn't function if based on profit.
This deal seems to assume a lot about SL bringing more income to the books.So we pay 12.5% of all our revenue to Silverlake ? $200m a year revenue approx currently so $25m base before growth. $25m / $380 = 6.58% cost per year. House loans cost 3%. Deposit interest rates are 1.1%. If this was just funding then it doesn’t make sense.
So the question that follows is does this company provide the expertise, relationships that will grow new revenues to justify this? Better than other partners? Better than we might do independently? They are selling us the dream with virtually no risk to themselves....If this was just a business then we would stop with those questions. But it’s more than that.
NB: The $40m offered to the Provinces is not much when shared between them.
-
Doesn't sound like this will be easily sorted.
The Silver Lake proposal will deliver far more value to rugby than just the money to support the game and communities around New Zealand but also open up new opportunities for the development of players at all levels and growth into new global markets,
Andrew Ritchie, the Chairman of the Northland Rugby Union says the future of New Zealand rugby for the next 50 years depends on bringing much needed support to the grassroots game as well as taking the game to the next level internationally.
“We know emotions are running high because rugby is so dear to all out hearts. However, we also need to understand that the many communities across New Zealand are the lifeblood of rugby and the Silver Lake proposal is the only actual proposal which will unlock the potential of the sport. It alone will provide the sustainable capital to improve infrastructure from clubrooms to the use of technology to better develop player skills at all levels of the game. New Zealand rugby will only get one shot at this and the Silver Lake proposal is an outstanding opportunity to secure a bright future for our national game,” says Ritchie.
Ritchie adds that it is worth remembering that the Players Representatives also started at the grassroots level and this is where the support was most needed to keep rugby alive.
“New Zealand rugby cannot continue to perform and grow as a local, national or international game unless we have the financial certainty to properly support game in the Heartland – the grassroots is where all players start their association with rugby right through to the All Blacks but unless we nurture our community game we cannot have a future. The Silver Lake deal is the only one on the table that locks in that support for the communities and grassroots rugby - we should embrace it including the Players Representatives because this is where they all began their careers too.”
Ritchie says it is disappointing the way that the Forsyth Barr announcement was made without any consultation with the New Zealand Rugby Union and its disingenuous introduction of promises it may never keep.
“Mums and Dads deserve to be told the truth and not given false promises of owning shares for $100 as a better solution for the future of New Zealand rugby – the issue is not about a few shares but how much financial support makes it into the communities and people in the Heartland that live and breathe rugby – only the Silver Lake proposal delivers this as well as a global sports distribution network that will transform rugby through new audiences, different global markets and technology.”
“All of the Provincial rugby unions have voted unanimously for the Silver Lake proposal which is a ‘win win’ opportunity of a lifetime for New Zealand rugby and the communities that provide the support for our national game. Let’s not make this a political football and but get on with delivering the benefits to grassroots rugby and provide a bright and certain future for the game.”
Article added: Monday 17 May 2021
