Perhaps it has more to do with the support for the club ie sponsorship TPAs from those linked to Balmain. Its of equal importance for clubs to be successful to be able to draw financial backing from external sources other than relying on a leagues club alone. Dont beleieve for a minute they would make a business decision on sympathy alone.
Balmain set to retain stake in Wests Tigers as deadline extended
- Thread starter Benjirific
- Start date
goldcoast_tiger
New member
I understand how the old Tiger supporters feel, I'd feel the same in their shoes, but where's the benifits for WTs.
This was a chance to bring in a partner who can help the club financially,,
Instead it's going to cost Wests Ashfield club a packet, and we still have no more money coming into the joint.
Classic example of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
There's got to be something that they're not telling us behind this
This was a chance to bring in a partner who can help the club financially,,
Instead it's going to cost Wests Ashfield club a packet, and we still have no more money coming into the joint.
Classic example of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
There's got to be something that they're not telling us behind this
Gary_Bakerloo
New member
@goldcoast tiger said:
Balmain's financial position is not ideal, but take a step back and consider the potential liabilities going forward. At worse, Wests Tigers loses about $1m per year….that's $500k pa each shareholder needs to stump up, at worse. It's not really a massive amount of money, especially when you look at the balance sheet of Wests Ashfield. Even when you add on the debt to be retired, it's not catastrophic for Wests Ashfield.
Allow Balmain 10 years to get themselves sorted. It means we have some medium term stability in the boardroom and the club can get on with its operations both on and off the field. Who knows......the club may make a profit one day and a distribution is paid....
Gary_Bakerloo
New member
By the way, if this is the deal on the table, this should have been executed more than 12 months ago. If it was, it could be argued Balmain would have 4 seats on the board. Instead, they ran to the NRL under the guise of "board independence" and here we are today.
goldcoast_tiger
New member
Gary, I understand that, but Balmain also has to pay the half of the NRL debt that is left.
We still ave a lot of uncertainty around the club, Balmain could go under at any stage.
There's a lot of people who know more than me about what's happening, but I think that we now have a chance to get some real finance into the club, we should be making sure that we have a solid partner, rather than a shakey one like Balmain.
We still ave a lot of uncertainty around the club, Balmain could go under at any stage.
There's a lot of people who know more than me about what's happening, but I think that we now have a chance to get some real finance into the club, we should be making sure that we have a solid partner, rather than a shakey one like Balmain.
balmain boy
Well-known member
So basically Balmain would owe Wests $2.5 million, to be paid back within 10 years. By which time i'm assuming the belief is Balmain leagues club will be operational and turning a profit.
Wests would be chipping in all the cash in the meantime, Balmain would be chipping in nothing. Wests Get an extra couple of board seats but possibly not the Chair.
It sounds like Wests are making some token offerings to Balmain but they'll be effectively running the joint by themselves.
Or who knows maybe a private backer will be assisting Balmain get back on track.
The main thing i'd be wary of is having a board made up predominantly of leagues club representatives. The independents have brought great corporate governance, stability and growth to the organisation. All Balmain and Wests board members have showed over the past 20 years is how to run a team into a black hole. I want the independents to stay, but with Wests taking on majority ownership obviously they have a stronger right to control the board.
Wests would be chipping in all the cash in the meantime, Balmain would be chipping in nothing. Wests Get an extra couple of board seats but possibly not the Chair.
It sounds like Wests are making some token offerings to Balmain but they'll be effectively running the joint by themselves.
Or who knows maybe a private backer will be assisting Balmain get back on track.
The main thing i'd be wary of is having a board made up predominantly of leagues club representatives. The independents have brought great corporate governance, stability and growth to the organisation. All Balmain and Wests board members have showed over the past 20 years is how to run a team into a black hole. I want the independents to stay, but with Wests taking on majority ownership obviously they have a stronger right to control the board.
If this comes to fruition, I for one am extremely impressed with the Wests Group savvy.
This is an extremely well thought out proposal, It will retain all the Balmain:
supporters (that might have felt disenfranchised),
Juniors,
sponsorship Etc.
And lets not forget "good will", it will go through the roof.
Wasn't it the mantra that in the future Wests Tigers would need no funding by the Wests and Balmain clubs?
This is smart, on so many levels.
This is an extremely well thought out proposal, It will retain all the Balmain:
supporters (that might have felt disenfranchised),
Juniors,
sponsorship Etc.
And lets not forget "good will", it will go through the roof.
Wasn't it the mantra that in the future Wests Tigers would need no funding by the Wests and Balmain clubs?
This is smart, on so many levels.
@Patts said:
Wests don't stump up 75% of the running costs. The NRL grant provides most of tbe funds. If there's not going to be a JV they should just make the shift to a genuine members run club with memberships that actually mean that.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@Gary Bakerloo said:
And if they can't Gary ??
Where is Balmain going to find money to bail themselves out honestly ??
Honestly I reckon Balmain will be in a far worse position in 10 years time , especially if they have to pay any sort of interest on this money owed
G
Guest
Guest
I just wish the whole saga would end and if that results in Wests owning the JV, so be it. Focus on winning football games, that tends to keep everyone happy.
Gary_Bakerloo
New member
@happy tiger said:
Well….we will have another massive spike in forum activity in 10 years time.
10 years is a long time:
- Time for Balmain to sort out the leagues club
- if they can't, time to build value into the JV for a potential buyer
Further, I still think Wests Campbelltown may have a role to play in the JV....just my thoughts, nothing tangible.
Gary_Bakerloo
New member
@willow said:
Don't you think what the article states as the "deal" partially gets us there? It's not definitive yet, but at least provides 10 years of ownership/board stability and we can get on with achieving on field success.
@goldcoast tiger said:
None of the potential buyers would want to just own half though. Everyone that has come out and said they could buy a club has said they would only do it if they owned the whole club, 100% of it. There's not much point investing that much money into something for 50% of it, especially when you've got nothing to gain by it. If the offer was for 51%, making the buyer the majority owner, then maybe things would be different. But I just can't see how a smart business person like Triguboff or even Koukash would be interested in buying half a club.
hammertime
Well-known member
@happy tiger said:
I'm 100% with you happy. Worst outcome possible. I cannot fathom the positivity from everyone else!
Do people not remember how bad the leagues clubs were at running the show? Finally, we got some independents on the board, the ship started righting itself and now we're removing it again!!
aarrrggghhhhh…....... :deadhorse:
As happy said, remember this day. I'll be dredging up this thread for 'I told you so's' for a long time to come if this happens.
@Yossarian said:
Yes, I should have said 75% of the short fall.
But I think your rational is a bit simplistic. Based on your rational above all club will be equal with the new increased NRL grants. Not true. There will always be additional costs running into the millions beyond what the grant covers. If you have a look at West Ashfields public financial statements they are topping up the WT nearly $2M per year. And we are one of the poorer clubs with less support staff, training facilities, etc. My point is the increased grant isn't going to save Balmain from not having a large revenue stream.
Wests Ashfield aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They are a business first and foremost, and their loyalty lies to their members and patrons, not to Balmain RLFC.
So in saying this, they obviously see more downside in letting Balmain exit from the JV, than any upside of running the show themselves.
I said in another thread that Balmain might not be able to contribute money directly into the JV, but their indirect contributions are significant through the sponsorships they bring to the table, the potential TPAs going forward, and the significant supporter base that transferred over from Balmain to the Wests Tigers. This translates into literally millions of dollars per year coming into the club, something the average punter may not be aware of.
By leaving Balmain with some sort of ownership, Wests Ashfield have ensured that the Wests Tigers can hang onto all of the above assets that Balmain has brought to the table, while giving their own image as unifiers a nice boost as well.
To those wishing for private ownership, yeah the grass is always greener. But a private owner (Searle, Tinkler anyone?) does not always work out and can leave the club in a worse position then when they arrived. I would prefer to see wealthy supporters tip money into the club through sponsorship and player TPAs, rather than buy the whole joint.
Hats off to Wests Ashfield I say, they have played this one very well it seems.
So in saying this, they obviously see more downside in letting Balmain exit from the JV, than any upside of running the show themselves.
I said in another thread that Balmain might not be able to contribute money directly into the JV, but their indirect contributions are significant through the sponsorships they bring to the table, the potential TPAs going forward, and the significant supporter base that transferred over from Balmain to the Wests Tigers. This translates into literally millions of dollars per year coming into the club, something the average punter may not be aware of.
By leaving Balmain with some sort of ownership, Wests Ashfield have ensured that the Wests Tigers can hang onto all of the above assets that Balmain has brought to the table, while giving their own image as unifiers a nice boost as well.
To those wishing for private ownership, yeah the grass is always greener. But a private owner (Searle, Tinkler anyone?) does not always work out and can leave the club in a worse position then when they arrived. I would prefer to see wealthy supporters tip money into the club through sponsorship and player TPAs, rather than buy the whole joint.
Hats off to Wests Ashfield I say, they have played this one very well it seems.
Black_n_White
New member
many of you seem to forget what set all this in motion.
Balmain not being able to meet their bi-annual contribution of $400k, being $800k per year.
So those saying the NRL grant covers operations are wrong. The NRL Grant, Sponsorship money and gate sales, dont cover operating costs, never have, never will. As a recent paper concluded, there is a gap between the richer and poorer clubs is up to $10M investment per year. Dont be fooled into thinking we are in the top bracket of big spenders.
Dont take this as me personally not wanting Balmain involved, I do. What I dont want is a Balmain who hamstrings our ability to invest in the Club because of some bi-partisan agreement where the partners can only match investment dollar for dollar.
I am honestly a fan of the new proposal, but with conditions that protect Wests Tigers, not Balmain. Balmain need to fight for the West Tigers, not the other way around.
I know that sounds harsh, but this has to be a move forward moment, and not jumping back on the hat in hand hamster wheel
Balmain not being able to meet their bi-annual contribution of $400k, being $800k per year.
So those saying the NRL grant covers operations are wrong. The NRL Grant, Sponsorship money and gate sales, dont cover operating costs, never have, never will. As a recent paper concluded, there is a gap between the richer and poorer clubs is up to $10M investment per year. Dont be fooled into thinking we are in the top bracket of big spenders.
Dont take this as me personally not wanting Balmain involved, I do. What I dont want is a Balmain who hamstrings our ability to invest in the Club because of some bi-partisan agreement where the partners can only match investment dollar for dollar.
I am honestly a fan of the new proposal, but with conditions that protect Wests Tigers, not Balmain. Balmain need to fight for the West Tigers, not the other way around.
I know that sounds harsh, but this has to be a move forward moment, and not jumping back on the hat in hand hamster wheel
@Black'n'White said:
Exactly, that's my fear. That Wests Ashfield limit their spending due to the limitations of Balmain being about to contribute a proportional amount. In the event they can't, surely the NRL won't loan Balmain more money so they can. My pure speculation is more and more percentage ownership will pass to Wests Ashfield each year, if Balmain can't meet their financial commitments. That's pure speculation but obviously something has to happen if Balmain can't meet these new obligations.
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
It's funny but one of Eddie Obeid's sons was doing TPAs or something similar for Parra players via home units
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/parramatta-eels/jarryd-hayne-eddie-obeid-jnr-the-parramatta-eels-and-the-murky-world-of-secret-player-payments-20150722-giib8b.html
He famously stated I will do anything for anyone associated with Parramatta team.
That is the type of guy we need - who cares whether is black or white as long as it catches the mouse.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/parramatta-eels/jarryd-hayne-eddie-obeid-jnr-the-parramatta-eels-and-the-murky-world-of-secret-player-payments-20150722-giib8b.html
He famously stated I will do anything for anyone associated with Parramatta team.
That is the type of guy we need - who cares whether is black or white as long as it catches the mouse.
