Time to sell off the Parramatta Eels, urges business heavyweight Bill Moss

[ash411]

What if it was Morgan's family who wanted to buy the club?

Well... that would be awkward.

I actually like Morgan, I kinda hope he stays.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Maybe Simon, the Yellow Wiggle can buy us.

At least the kids will enjoy the halftime entertainment.

Simon Baker and Mick Dundee too. Surely Mick has enough $$ from Crocodile Dundee repeats on TV to have a shot.

What people fail to realise is that celebrity owners only work if they are committed to the club. I know Simon Baker is no.1 fan but how many times have you seen him hand out Eels merchandise on American chat shows or even mentioned the Eels? Never. Because he is not Russell Crowe.

The Eels if privatised would be bought by one of those investment funds and the fans would get screwed to make money.

 

[TheParraboy]

What people fail to realise is that celebrity owners only work if they are committed to the club. I know Simon Baker is no.1 fan but how many times have you seen him hand out Eels merchandise on American chat shows or even mentioned the Eels? Never. Because he is not Russell Crowe.
The Eels if privatised would be bought by one of those investment funds and the fans would get screwed to make money.

I don't remember Rusty doing that either (before he became owner).

 

[Bandwagon]

I don't remember Rusty doing that either (before he became owner).

He did however continuously pump money into the club.

I think that displays a reasonable level of commitment.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Well... that would be awkward.

I actually like Morgan, I kinda hope he stays.

Yeh, Morgs is fine on back-up wages.

He also gives us a bit of insurance in terms of the long-term player discount (not that he should be paid the full amount of that). The only other eligible player is Mannah.

 

[Parra]

Moss is right.

Privatise.

 

[eloquentEEL]

Current board is accountable to voting members. A privatised board would be accountable only to the owner and the aforementioned members would be relegated to the role of "customer".

The only reason members would give up their rights would be if the club was in dire financial trouble.

 

[Parra]

The voting members are rank idiots.

This is proven by the boards that have been elected.

Privatisation means accountability.

You can't keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.

 

[eloquentEEL]

Voting members may be rank idiots. Seems the vote is normally based on the reason "because they're not the other mob".

However, privatisation has similar downside risk, just without the controls.

 

[ash411]

Current board is accountable to voting members. A privatised board would be accountable only to the owner and the aforementioned members would be relegated to the role of "customer".

The only reason members would give up their rights would be if the club was in dire financial trouble.

What makes you think there'd be a board at all?

There would be the team owner and the people he employs to run the team, under his direction.

That's how I'd do it.

 

[Suitman]

Current board is accountable to voting members. A privatised board would be accountable only to the owner and the aforementioned members would be relegated to the role of "customer".

The only reason members would give up their rights would be if the club was in dire financial trouble.

I wonder what Souths fans think?

Suity

 

[Kornstar]

I wonder what Souths fans think?

Suity

I reckon they'd be really pissed, I know I'd hate a premiership :lol:

Even Piggins has to be happy!

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Voting members may be rank idiots. Seems the vote is normally based on the reason "because they're not the other mob".

However, privatisation has similar downside risk, just without the controls.

Privatisation (if done thoughtfully and not rushed) has the ultimate control....that the owners have a high-powered incentive to increase and protect the long term value of the 'business'.

As I said about 2 years ago, I'd consider calling for tenders for a 5-year lease on the NRL license, with the successful tenderer being given the right to match the highest offer when the license is re-tendered in 5 years time. The PLC would be most welcome to tender for either lease.

 

[Gronk]

We rely on the LC to tip in millions per year. It's not viable for a private person or consortium to take over unless its a rich person's folly like a Syd Hobart yacht.

 

[Bandwagon]

Is that a reflection of the potential of the Eels as a business, or the history of how it has been run though?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

We rely on the LC to tip in millions per year. It's not viable for a private person or consortium to take over unless its a rich person's folly like a Syd Hobart yacht.

You're right, of course, if you consider only short-run cash flows, and assume that the quality of management is the same.....and that the split of the very sizeable NRL pie doesn't change over the next 5-10 years. There's certainly more than the average level of risk present. But the right bunch of owners, with the right associates who can lever off the 'brand' (should it be fixed) can make money out of this.

I'd also suggest that if the NRL license was taken away, the LC's bottom line would not improve by the amount of the subsidy to the NRL team. The indirect benefits of controlling the NRL franchise will contribute to the revenues of the club, and thus the real economic subsidy is likely overstated.

 

[strider]

but don't the NRL own the logo and all that shit - which makes it a bit harder to make money off the brand? surely that deters potential owners

 

[Twizzle]

The voting members are rank idiots.

This is proven by the boards that have been elected.

Privatisation means accountability.

You can't keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.

as distinct from our current board ??

 

[Kornstar]

but don't the NRL own the logo and all that shit - which makes it a bit harder to make money off the brand? surely that deters potential owners

Isn't that part of what the meeting in Melbourne was after origin? Other sporting clubs get a much bigger piece of the pie where we get some poultry amount?

If we got a bigger slice then the LC would need to tip in much less and privatisation would be much more viable?

Much more intelligent people on here could answer that though.

 

[eel01s]

Isn't that part of what the meeting in Melbourne was after origin? Other sporting clubs get a much bigger piece of the pie where we get some poultry amount?

If we got a bigger slice then the LC would need to tip in much less and privatisation would be much more viable?

Much more intelligent people on here could answer that though.

Sorry Kornstar I couldn't resist! Seriously we need a laugh around here though.