We are up for sale!

[The Showstopper]

All the proof you need he thinks Rugby League is a bank!

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I want to now how this will effect the make up of the board...

The clubs will never be profitable enough t be worth a money-driven investment, so any new owner will simply be looking for influence in club decision making (seats on the board). So i wonder which current board members will be moved on/ which will stay or if the board will just be expanded.

Wests constant reluctance to buy us out has always annoyed me. Whilst they've been there supporting the club since foundation, they portray a 'Holier than thou' attitude.

It shits me because they are close to the stadium so they would make a good bit of cash every home game, yet they have never really been willing to put skin in the game (im happy to be proven wrong on this; i know there might be plenty of stories i have just never heard).

They would be the best owners in that they have a community presence that would give fans a common sense of ownership. I have always been cautious about Billionaires buying clubs because we just become their playthings.

Leagues Clubs on the other hand actually provide a community culture (even if the feeling is misguided) that creates a more genuine sense of community ownership.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Interesting development, the fact that its deemed to be an auction means the NRL feels they have a number of interested parties and the auction process provides the best scenario to drive up the price.

SS, I agree its ironic that after screwing us on expenditure they want to maximise their return, if they had any conscience they would assign the proceeds of the sale, after their expenses, to fund a COE and academy based in Newcastle.

Now I will add that there seems little chance of securing 20M for the club, in what world or financial metric allows you to establish that type of valuation, i suspect its more them trying to drive up the price prior to the process.

Anyway I do think that the next owner will have needed to prove their bona fides in detail before it changes hands again.

I hate the idea of going to a simple auction. The person brave/stupid enough to bid the most is not necessarily the person best able to lead the club...

I would much rather they ARLC place a simple figure on the club (eg. a flat $5million) and saying anyone willing/able to pay this can apply. Then go through every applicant and the best candidate (whether that is the person willing to put in the most cash in the long run or the person who brings the most experience or the person with the nicest smile).

Pick the best candidate, not just the biggest bag of money....

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

All the proof you need he thinks Rugby League is a bank!

Yeh, since SuperLeague RL has lost a lot of that magic and is just looking like a cash machine.

Im the first to say that money is important to the game (i hate hearing people bitch about ticket prices to GF/Origin), but something needs to change to make the fans more than just passive observers/open wallets.

 

[slotmachine]

Found this:

Yeah, that's my point. When tinks was punted and the debts were paid, we had $5m in the bank.

We lose $1m in 2015 which we apparently had to borrow from the NRL. So where did the cash go?

Doc, if there is a private owner there will be no board, unless said owner appoints their own.

 

[The Showstopper]

A new CEO of some experience in running a footy club is a must.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Yeah, that's my point. When tinks was punted and the debts were paid, we had $5m in the bank.

We lose $1m in 2015 which we apparently had to borrow from the NRL. So where did the cash go?

Doc, if there is a private owner there will be no board, unless said owner appoints there own.

Thats not necessarily true, the ARLC might decide they want to keep control of at least a few seats (All clubs are privately owned in some form yet the ARLC seem determined to place independent directors on as many boards as possible).

I cannot imagine (after the instability of Tinkler) the ARLC would be so willing to hand EVERYTHING over to another Millionaire, knowing they could tear all of it down in a few years.

And, if the plan is to hand everything over to this one owner, i would ask why they went to so much trouble putting together this board of local business people and community representatives just to kick them out at the first chance.

Im not even convinced we even NEED to be privately owned. The club could be structured as a Not-For-Profit corporate entity (all of the cash being reinvested into the club and the members being the "stakeholders"). If they want the cash injection of private ownership, they could sell seats on the board (eg. $1million for 4 years in control of 1 seat) while the ARLC ensures the stability of the club and has the capacity to place independent directors to X number of seats.

i mean, the point of a private owner isnt really to put their own cash into the club, it is to bring the business expertise that would entice Sponsors and bring fans; expertise we sort of already have in the independent board seats. We brought in Tinks so we could remove the 80s busness model of the Boiz Clubbb board and the chook raffle accounting, but they are not the only 2 options.

We have already seen the turmoil one all-powerful owner can create, why would we want to go back to that model??

 

[slotmachine]

Thats not necessarily true, the ARLC might decide they want to keep control of at least a few seats (All clubs are privately owned in some form yet the ARLC seem determined to place independent directors on as many boards as possible).

The NRL get their own guys on boards of clubs that they either own (us/titans) or prop up (tigers/saint george). Any competently run club would laugh in the NRL's face if they tried to impose themselves.

So, what potential owner is going to fork out $20m to get a non-controlling stake in the club? I guess you could have a board with a few token NRL members on it but it would be a complete waste of time (much like Tinkler's advisory board).

And, if the plan is to hand everything over to this one owner, i would ask why they went to so much trouble putting together this board of local business people and community representatives just to kick them out at the first chance.

A fine question.

We have already seen the turmoil one all-powerful owner can create, why would we want to go back to that model??

Don't get a choice, we get whatever the NRL gives us as there is no longer a members club. Members are only season ticket holders or paying for a pile of junk (in the case of non-ticketed membership).

 

[Nuffy]

Lets not get too excited, Barry Toohey responded to me on Twitter today saying that it was just the NRL trying to start the process. It's Gate zero right now.

 

[Alex28]

Wests constant reluctance to buy us out has always annoyed me. Whilst they've been there supporting the club since foundation, they portray a 'Holier than thou' attitude.

I don't think they are reluctant - they are more looking for a bargain rather than paying full freight.

 

[Nuffy]

I don't think they are reluctant - they are more looking for a bargain rather than paying full freight.

They want it for nothing hence Gardiners opportunistic offer of a dollar at the beginning.

That's not a position of benevolence. Let them fight for it, we want owners who are committed and passionate, not bargain hunters.

 

[macavity]

I don't think they are reluctant - they are more looking for a bargain rather than paying full freight.

If they are serious, they should call the NRL's bluff - "we will pay back the debt, and invest X (X being a big number) in a Centre of Excellence, Junior facilities, etc etc."

Lets see if the NRL are trying to fill their coffers or get the best result for Newcastle - because there is no overlap.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The NRL get their own guys on boards of clubs that they either own (us/titans) or prop up (tigers/saint george). Any competently run club would laugh in the NRL's face if they tried to impose themselves.

..........

I guess you could have a board with a few token NRL members on it but it would be a complete waste of time (much like Tinkler's advisory board)

Except it is happening...

As far as ive heard, the 3 independent directors are staying on the Tigers board (the Wests controlling stake is coming from buying-out half of the Balmain voting rights and the other half being non-active). They even tried to place an independent sopt on the Parra board during the Salary Cap saga dispite no loan being asked for.

Sure, that might be utterly overpowered by a single united faction, but just sitting there to offer expertise/bring in contacts is better than allowing a Boiz Clubbb to hold every position.

So, what potential owner is going to fork out $20m to get a non-controlling stake in the club?

This is kind of the point i was trying to make; the owners cash is a bit useless....

The point of an owner is to offer the expertise and contacts that will bring in sponsors. I believe Rusty hasnt put any of his own money into Souths since 2008.

So there is no real point offering the club to a bloke with $20mil if he cannot bring in sponsors. $20mil might run the club for 2 years at a stretch, so why not give/sell the seats for much less to the people that can run the club as more than just the plaything of a millionaire.

(That was the whole structure of Tinklers ownership, he would front his own $10mil-a-year then try to make it back by bringing in sponsors/fans. He just wasnt very good at it...)

Don't get a choice, we get whatever the NRL gives us as there is no longer a members club. Members are only season ticket holders or paying for a pile of junk (in the case of non-ticketed membership).

Im very glad the members dont get a say. The detail of the deal would have been reduced to "i love this club, vote for me" "no, I love this club, vote for me".

The point i was trying to make is that the potential instability of this autocratic owner should recourage the ARLC more then anyone. Why sell when you might be buying it back and rebuilding AGAIN in 5 years? Why not build a stable structure than allows a flow of local business people without blowing the place up and rebuilding with every retirement/bankruptcy

(Its basically a debate between a Dictatorship vs a Republic. Dictatorships base themselves entirely around one person, so when they are gone the system collapses and needs to be rebuilt, usually accompanied by civil wars and factional infighting. Republics on the other hand create the system knowing there will inevitably be turn-over of the people in charge)

 

[slotmachine]

Looks like you're not alone with that opinion. McGuigan is in the paper today saying club isn't ready to be sold.