Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

A toxic mix of decreasing income, increasing outgoings and living off capital

Getty Images

How to spend £5.3 million? That’s the question many Premiership clubs could be asking themselves, and if so, many Directors of Rugby may be pondering which of Nigel Wray’s players they could buy using Nigel Wray’s money?

ADVERTISEMENT

On a serious note, Saracens paying a fine that is used for compensation, distributed among Premier Rugby Shareholders, may draw a line under the whole saga. particularly if these payments circumvent the need for any more legal drama.

What would clubs do with their 9% (441k)?

Firstly they would reduce that figure to £308k because CVC owns 30% of Premier Rugby Limited (PRL). Even so, £308k is hardly a kick in the teeth for cash-hungry clubs.

Maybe, Wray’s £308k can mitigate the drop in TV money received by Premiership clubs this month?

Video Spacer

Finance departments at clubs across the league will be opening envelopes embossed with the BT Sport wax seal, only to find the contents lighter than that of previous envelopes, lighter by 30% in fact.

The Pro14 announced that CVC would be their new investment partner last week, though it’s not rugby that CVC is investing in, it’s TV revenues and central advertising. The deal is simple, like a financial derivative or a futures contract but with added benefits of an equity stake (or risk).

There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it is important to understand the nature of rugby’s situation. Private Equity firms do many things, they are hard to define. Probably the best definition of Private Equity is an organisation that employs clever people and backs them with money.

ADVERTISEMENT

In Premier Rugby Ltd’s case CVC’s objectives are to enjoy 30% of the revenues from a couple more rounds of TV deals, then sell the shares for substantially more then they bought them for.

Manu Vunipola watches
Saracens’ Manu Vunipola looks on during European defeat to Racing (Photo by Mike Hewitt/Getty Images)

They hope to package up all manner of rugby from the Premiership to Pro14 and eventually the 6 Nations, then sell the TV rights in order to further boost their returns but don’t be mistaken, the deal is about securing TV money and growing revenue, growing rugby would just be happy coincidence.

The idea of CVC investing in rugby is a little disingenuous, to invest in “rugby” you would of need to buy 30% in all the clubs rather than just the PRL. CVC will do well out of this deal, So the next question you might ask is why are the other shareholders, the clubs, not in great shape?

ADVERTISEMENT

Let’s start with the deal its self. The best way to explain this is with an analogy.

Imagine a block of flats with 13 owners (12 premiership clubs plus Newcastle) who all have an equal share. They rent out the flats, however the rent does not cover the cost of the upkeep. So they strike a deal with a third party who buys 30% of the building, giving the original 13 a cash lump sum.

The flats now have 14 owners. The new owner owns 30% (CVC), and the remaining 13 own 5.3% (the clubs).

The income from the flats are split in accordance to the shareholdings, however the quirk of this deal is that all the costs are born only by the original shareholders (the clubs).

The clubs would pay for the upkeep, the maintenance, rates, utilities, staffing costs, gardening etc exclusively from their 70% share of the rent. The risk for CVC is rents falling or the block of flats burning down.

Sadly the fundamental problem remains that expenses are higher than income, when the new partners’ capital has all been spent they will be in a worse situation then when they started. The clubs issue was never not enough capital.

If clubs are wise they will spend their windfall on income generating assets, stands, hotels, conferencing facilities, you get the idea.

If they spend it on player wages, directors loan repayments and paying down debt the future may be very bleak indeed. Professional Rugby clubs struggle to make profits and with a 30% reduction in central revenues it might leave club owners making some very hard decisions in the future.

The problem with the CVC deal is it exchanges income for capital and as any spendthrift with an inheritance will tell you, you can’t live off capital for long.

Worse still, no matter how you look at the situation you would struggle to find a scenario where clubs would be able to buy back the shares in the league.

The most likely buyer of CVCs shares, should they decide to exit this agreement would probably be another financial institution.

It’s not even clear that if CVC were successful in increasing TV money that this would be a good thing.

It’s reasonable to say that clubs hooked on the first high of CVC cash but still not profitable might look at their balance sheets and see the huge value of their PRL shares. They then might be tempted by a further sale of shares, compounding their cash flow issues in the future even further. This might sound familiar to fans of Leeds Rugby who sold their shares to Exeter only to find, guess what? – you can’t live off capital for long.

Not that CVC would necessarily care, clubs can go bankrupt at any time however it’s unlikely the league itself could, it has minimal overheads compared to a clubs and should one club leave the league it would simply be replaced by another, clubs are replaceable, again ask Leeds.

It’s a toxic mix of decreasing income, increasing outgoings and living off capital.

The CVC deal is probably a more an indictment of the perilous situations club owners find themselves in. It also highlights the importance of controlling expenditure and especially player wages.

My fear is that the CVC money is covering for poorly run clubs. When the CVC party finally stops there will be plenty of sore heads and regretful memories of questionable decisions. Enjoy it while it lasts!

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 5 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Return of 30-something brigade provides welcome tonic for Wales Return of 30-something brigade provides welcome tonic for Wales
Search