• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

Adam84

Mark Loane (55)
I was really commenting from the Australian perspective. The ABs are in a different class to us. But even they, at the end of the day, depend to a large extent on the goodwill of the worldwide rugby community. If they took a step too far, they could find themselves out in the cold. Rich, but lonely.

Yes you're right the NZRU are in a different class but its indicative of the expectation of PE and the standard set, if NZRU are offering up veto rights to PE then RA will absolutely be required to do the same
 

Adam84

Mark Loane (55)
I find the private equity investment troubling. I could almost understand if they lease rights to a third party for a guaranteed payment, but selling rights could end in all sorts of issues.

Yep its not the holy grail people make it out to be, in the case of NZRU they're giving up 15%(maybe 12.5%) of all future revenue for a cash injection up front. it's not simply a cash injection they can splash around, it needs to be invested in a way which ensure equal or greater revenue is generated in the future.
 

Dan54

Michael Lynagh (62)
Yep its not the holy grail people make it out to be, in the case of NZRU they're giving up 15%(maybe 12.5%) of all future revenue for a cash injection up front. it's not simply a cash injection they can splash around, it needs to be invested in a way which ensure equal or greater revenue is generated in the future.
From what I understand the NZR PE deal (if it goes ahead) has a clause they have first right's to buying it back when Silver Lake decide to sell it. But you right, it needs to be invested in way to ensure it generates income.
 

Adam84

Mark Loane (55)
From what I understand the NZR PE deal (if it goes ahead) has a clause they have first right's to buying it back when Silver Lake decide to sell it. But you right, it needs to be invested in way to ensure it generates income.

Which is nice in theory...
Problem is if NZRU are generating enough money to be able to buy it back, then it also means the value of that 15% has increased in value proportionate to the increase in revenue, actually greater since the Silver Lakes are the ones taking on the majority of the initial risk. It's rare once the PE gates are open for them to close them again.
 

Adam84

Mark Loane (55)
An interesting case is the ABA-NBA merger in 80's, the St Louis Spirit were forced out as part of the merger, but as part of the merger the owners negotiated a percentage of future revenue in perpetuity, essentially a non-voting 2% PE stake in NBA broadcast revenue. The 'owners' of the St Louis Spirit have received close to $300 in broadcast revenue despite their team never played in the NBA, before the NBA finally paid them $500million to buy out the 2% stake.
 
Last edited:

Dan54

Michael Lynagh (62)
Yes you're right the NZRU are in a different class but its indicative of the expectation of PE and the standard set, if NZRU are offering up veto rights to PE then RA will absolutely be required to do the same
Must admit Adam , I never read anything about veto rights, not saying it not true, just have never seen that anywhere.
 

Dan54

Michael Lynagh (62)
Which is nice in theory.
Problem is if NZRU are generating enough money to be able to buy it back, then it also means the value of that 15% has increased in value proportionate to the increase in revenue, actually greater since the Silver Lakes are the ones taking on the majority of the initial risk. It's rare once the PE gates are open for them to close them again.
Understand that, but for the shares to be worth more can only be acheived by Silver Lake increasing the earnings of the group, which also means the NZR also increases it's earnings. From what I have read the intention or hope would be is sold to something like a superanuation company, a passive investor if you will.
 

Members Section

Bob Loudon (25)
So the NRL yesterday moved the storm prelim to 4pm, surely RA/Sanzaar are not going to put the wallabies up against the AFL gf? this game has to be at 1pm. The NZ v RSA game prob could go against the nrl but the Wallabies cant
 

Adam84

Mark Loane (55)
What kind of audience do you think they would get at 1pm versus 8pm?
From a SANZAAR perspective, 7pm AEST probably works better for South African and Argentinian time zones.
 

Dan54

Michael Lynagh (62)
What kind of audience do you think they would get at 1pm versus 8pm?
From a SANZAAR perspective, 7pm AEST probably works better for South African and Argentinian time zones.
Yep, and I think I read at one time some games were considered home games for Aus and some for SA, same with ABs and Pumas etc, so games were played at more suitable times for them.
 

stoff

Cyril Towers (30)
Yep, and I think I read at one time some games were considered home games for Aus and some for SA, same with ABs and Pumas etc, so games were played at more suitable times for them.
The branding on the field last weekend certainly suggested an SA home game.
 

wamberal

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
So the NRL yesterday moved the storm prelim to 4pm, surely RA/Sanzaar are not going to put the wallabies up against the AFL gf? this game has to be at 1pm. The NZ v RSA game prob could go against the nrl but the Wallabies cant
What sort of audience would the game draw at 1 pm?

Its just not rugby, old chap.
 

Slim 293

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Yikes, not great scheduling.......... if they could shift that game for Sunday, it would be ideal.

I'll just catch the replay on Stan anyways as I'll definitely be watching the AFL that night......... 'carn Doggies!
 

Bandar

Tom Lawton (22)
The proposed amendments to the RA selection criteria have been outlined.

I quite like the idea of 5 years of Super Rugby and over the age of 25, allows selection of players who have given it a crack and missed out but matured and improved while overseas.

 

dru

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
The proposed amendments to the RA selection criteria have been outlined.

I quite like the idea of 5 years of Super Rugby and over the age of 25, allows selection of players who have given it a crack and missed out but matured and improved while overseas.


Slippery slope.
 

Derpus

Rod McCall (65)
The proposed amendments to the RA selection criteria have been outlined.

I quite like the idea of 5 years of Super Rugby and over the age of 25, allows selection of players who have given it a crack and missed out but matured and improved while overseas.

Yes the minimum 5 years of domestic competition is a decent one as players who leave and peak overseas will still be selectable.

It will mean a lot of our players who are just hitting their straps will leave - but that seems to happen regardless.
 

wamberal

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Whatever happens in the future depends on how the team are travelling. Not much point being too dogmatic, in my opinion.

What I would like to see is a bit more top-down direction over selections, playing positions, and sabbaticals.

Nothing wrong with a bit of horse trading.
 
Top