Brydens Lawyers could buy 50% stake in WT

[GNR4LIFE]

From Wests pov, it would probably be a wiser move just to buy part of Balmain's share, even if it was 25, 10 or even 1 per cent. They'd still be majority owners regardless and at a fraction of the cost it would be to buy the full share.

Why do you want Wests as majority owner?

I don't care who owns it.

 

[glebe_tiger]

From Wests pov, it would probably be a wiser move just to buy part of Balmain's share, even if it was 25, 10 or even 1 per cent. They'd still be majority owners regardless and at a fraction of the cost it would be to buy the full share.

Probably would but owning more than 50% may undervalue the remaining share even more in regards to board seat numbers etc. Plus the NRL may not want this, only time will tell.

 

[Abraham]

That's what i don't get. If he wants to pay off Balmain's debt in exchange for their half of the JV there's nothing anyone can do about it. If Balmain want's to sell their share for $5 million is another question. Given if Balmain don't sell they they walk away empty handed you'd think it's in the best interests to sell to Bryden's as they get cash and representative with similar values to their own on the board.

If Balmain doesn't sell in the next week then they have no control over what happens to their half and who's interests they represent.

The one issue i can possibly see is the terms of the repayment of the debt to the NRL. Do they require an upfront payment in full? Or are they happy just to get their money back and will take a payment plan with strict legal conditions attached?

If Bryden's pay cash up front there's nothing anyone but Balmain can do to stop them owning half the JV.

This is where the confusion lies I believe.

He simply offered to buy Balmain's share of the JV for $5m.

He didn't offer to buy Blamain as a club, nor exchange the debt for Shares.

It was an offer to buy 50% of the Wests Tigers in his personal name, for the sum of $5m.

That's why I suggested he simply buy Balmain, if they agree to sell, for that price. However to do so, he would need to stump up $5.4m to the NRL upfront to avoid Balmain defaulting on the Loan. That may be where this idea trips up, as he may not have the $5.4m upfront.

 

[hammertime]

It would be a lot more painful to buy a club. You would need to get the vote from the members and I'm sure there would be a lot of complications as to how a non-profit turns into a profit entity.

Any offers need to go direct.

South's was recently bought at the end of 2014 by packer valuing it at $20 million. That's a good benchmark. We don't have the member base that they do (and maybe they have a lot more assets), so maybe around the $12-$14 mil mark. His offer would need to be closer to $6-7mil.

 

[diedpretty]

That's what i don't get. If he wants to pay off Balmain's debt in exchange for their half of the JV there's nothing anyone can do about it. If Balmain want's to sell their share for $5 million is another question. Given if Balmain don't sell they they walk away empty handed you'd think it's in the best interests to sell to Bryden's as they get cash and representative with similar values to their own on the board.

If Balmain doesn't sell in the next week then they have no control over what happens to their half and who's interests they represent.

The one issue i can possibly see is the terms of the repayment of the debt to the NRL. Do they require an upfront payment in full? Or are they happy just to get their money back and will take a payment plan with strict legal conditions attached?

If Bryden's pay cash up front there's nothing anyone but Balmain can do to stop them owning half the JV.

This is where the confusion lies I believe.

He simply offered to buy Balmain's share of the JV for $5m.

He didn't offer to buy Blamain as a club, nor exchange the debt for Shares.

It was an offer to buy 50% of the Wests Tigers in his personal name, for the sum of $5m.

That's why I suggested he simply buy Balmain, if they agree to sell, for that price. However to do so, he would need to stump up $5.4m to the NRL upfront to avoid Balmain defaulting on the Loan. That may be where this idea trips up, as he may not have the $5.4m upfront.

That makes no sense at all - whoever wants the 50% has to pay the NRL 5.4 mil to clear the debt owed to them. Nowhere since this debacle started have I seen that on top of the 5.4 mil you would also then have to pay a purchase price as well. I'm not saying that's not the case just that I have not seen or heard about it anywhere.

 

[diedpretty]

That's what i don't get. If he wants to pay off Balmain's debt in exchange for their half of the JV there's nothing anyone can do about it. If Balmain want's to sell their share for $5 million is another question. Given if Balmain don't sell they they walk away empty handed you'd think it's in the best interests to sell to Bryden's as they get cash and representative with similar values to their own on the board.

If Balmain doesn't sell in the next week then they have no control over what happens to their half and who's interests they represent.

The one issue i can possibly see is the terms of the repayment of the debt to the NRL. Do they require an upfront payment in full? Or are they happy just to get their money back and will take a payment plan with strict legal conditions attached?

If Bryden's pay cash up front there's nothing anyone but Balmain can do to stop them owning half the JV.

This is where the confusion lies I believe.

He simply offered to buy Balmain's share of the JV for $5m.

He didn't offer to buy Blamain as a club, nor exchange the debt for Shares.

It was an offer to buy 50% of the Wests Tigers in his personal name, for the sum of $5m.

That's why I suggested he simply buy Balmain, if they agree to sell, for that price. However to do so, he would need to stump up $5.4m to the NRL upfront to avoid Balmain defaulting on the Loan. That may be where this idea trips up, as he may not have the $5.4m upfront.

That makes no sense at all - whoever wants the 50% has to pay the NRL 5.4 mil to clear the debt owed to them. Nowhere since this debacle started have I seen that on top of the 5.4 mil you would also then have to pay a purchase price as well. I'm not saying that's not the case just that I have not seen or heard about it anywhere.

Just thinking on this again he may very well have been trying to pull a swifty by buying Balmains share as a pay as you go deal. Balmain would still owe the NRL 5.4 mil which they default on at the end of the month. Wests as guarantor would have to stump up the 5.4 mil in 6 months and get nothing in return as Balmain has already sold out.

 

[lathami]

Paul Kent just said on fox that magpies have offered to pay out balmain debt in full and will give balmain 25% of the merger and that's why they knocked back brydens!
Which if true is a great offer from the maggies really as they could own it all. If true
The plot thickens….

 

[Patts]

I wonder if that means Balmain would contribute 25% to the ongoing costs each year? Because I can't see how they could?
But otherwise I can see some real positives in that offer:-
1\. It values the franchise at near $22m
2\. It's a better deal for Balmain than the Bryden offer because it keeps them directly involved and surely gives them at least one board member.

 

[diedpretty]

Paul Kent just said on fox that magpies have offered to pay out balmain debt in full and will give balmain 25% of the merger and that's why they knocked back brydens!
Which if true is a great offer from the maggies really as they could own it all. If true
The plot thickens….

I know it doesn't seem like one but its a joint venture not a merger. As for Wests Ashfield - either they have more money than brains or we are yet to see the fine print. They will have to take on the financials 100% but only own 75% of the JV. Business wise that is a pretty stupid decision. There has to be more behind the scenes that we don't know about.

 

[gallagher]

Paul Kent just said on fox that magpies have offered to pay out balmain debt in full and will give balmain 25% of the merger and that's why they knocked back brydens!
Which if true is a great offer from the maggies really as they could own it all. If true
The plot thickens….

I know it doesn't seem like one but its a joint venture not a merger. As for Wests Ashfield - either they have more money than brains or we are yet to see the fine print. They will have to take on the financials 100% but only own 75% of the JV. Business wise that is a pretty stupid decision. There has to be more behind the scenes that we don't know about.

Poor business sense but probably good football sense. Keeping balmain part of the club would probably be what fans and sponsors want. Maybe the NRL aswell. Plus it keeps the Balmain junior district involved.
I hope this is true.

 

[Abraham]

Poor business sense but probably good football sense. Keeping balmain part of the club would probably be what fans and sponsors want. Maybe the NRL aswell. Plus it keeps the Balmain junior district involved.
I hope this is true.

I hope it's true too.

Wests Ashfield aren't as silly as people may think.

While Balmain may not be able to financially contribute directly to the JV they are able to contribute in other ways… i.e. The big end of town.

Meriton, MKB, Brydens (and maybe more) have all come to the Wests Tigers via Balmain. That adds up to millions per year that Ashfield don't want to throw away.

Watch this space I suppose.

 

[diedpretty]

I wonder if that means Balmain would contribute 25% to the ongoing costs each year? Because I can't see how they could?
But otherwise I can see some real positives in that offer:-
1\. It values the franchise at near $22m
2\. It's a better deal for Balmain than the Bryden offer because it keeps them directly involved and surely gives them at least one board member.

It would probably give them 2 - there are 7 at the moment - 3 independent 2 Wests and 2 vacant. I would imagine Wests would fill the 3 independents and Balmain take the 2 vacant. Who knows as usual the fans don't get told much.

 

[diedpretty]

Poor business sense but probably good football sense. Keeping balmain part of the club would probably be what fans and sponsors want. Maybe the NRL aswell. Plus it keeps the Balmain junior district involved.
I hope this is true.

I hope it's true too.

Wests Ashfield aren't as silly as people may think.

While Balmain may not be able to financially contribute directly to the JV they are able to contribute in other ways… i.e. The big end of town.

Meriton, MKB, Brydens (and maybe more) have all come to the Wests Tigers via Balmain. That adds up to millions per year that Ashfield don't want to throw away.

Watch this space I suppose.

Actually it may make better business sense than I first thought. Depends on how you now look at the valuation of the franchise - with a bit of creative accounting you could say that Balmains 25% share is valued at 5.4mil making the franchise worth 21.6mil which would be more in line with other NRL clubs. Wests 75% share would therefore be valued at 16.2mil. So effectively Wests would have increased their asset value in the JV by 10.8mil with an outlay of only 5.4mil. As I said pretty creative accounting but I don't know if it stands up.

 

[Magpie_Magic]

As i said before We at Wests have been kicked out etc and don't like to do same.

As a JV mergerit won't revert back to Wests Magpies so keeping Balmain involved is good for all and gives the 2 foundation clubs majority votesrather than outsiders in the picture.

 

[cochise]

If this is true then Wests Ashfield really need to be applauded for this offer. I hope this is what happens and it is seen as an act of solidarity and unity for the club. Lets use this to unite the club and move forward as 1 successful club and stop the bickering and infighting

 

[Patts]

It has gone very quiet on this front
2 days to go before the deadline.

 

[Go_Moltzen]

It has gone very quiet on this front
2 days to go before the deadline.

**<big>Wests Tigers vow to put own financial interests at top of list</big>**
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7cZOSaqaWhcJ:www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/nrl/wests-tigers-vow-to-put-own-financial-interests-at-top-of-list/news-story/64571cdfc4b0ff456bbe5e282472d69c+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk≷=au
THE AUSTRALIAN MARCH 29, 2016 12:00AM
Brent Read
Senior sports writer
Sydney

One of the most important weeks in Wests Tigers’ history has begun with chair Marina Go insisting the club must prioritise its own financial sustainability over the game’s desire to find a compromise on the future of Sydney stadiums.

Go stepped into the chair role with the club at its lowest ebb but the Tigers now find themselves negotiating from a position of strength given the influence they wield over the potential allocation of government funding towards Sydney’s major venues.

The joint venture is among four clubs whose future scheduling of home games could prove the difference between the state government devoting the lion’s share of its $1.6 billion stadium funding to ANZ Stadium, or instead directing it towards a new ground adjacent to Allianz Stadium.

The NRL has until Friday to lock in 65 games necessary to ensure the funding is forthcoming — the same day a 50 per cent share in the Tigers is expected to hit the open market.

The Tigers currently play four games apiece at Leichhardt Oval, Campbelltown Stadium and ANZ Stadium but it is believed the NRL would like the club to commit at least eight games to one of the city’s major grounds as part of the new agreement.

Go declined to reveal the Tigers’ plans, other than to say any decision would be centred around the ramifications for the club’s long-term future.

“We are going to make a decision that is based on the future financial sustainability of this organisation,” Go said. “That has to be a priority. It has been the board’s priority since day one. Some of our stakeholders know there is going to be some pain along the way.

“As a board we’re not afraid of that. We have made some bold decisions and will continue to do so.

“We’re trying to assess the full picture. That doesn’t mean we can’t make an in-principle decision around stadia. But clearly we need to make sure there is some financial gain for us in doing so.

“We’re not going to put our club in a position where we’re worse off because of a whole-of-game decision.”

Go confirmed the club had spoken to the NRL about helping fund a Centre of Excellence as part of the negotiations.

The Tigers lag behind some of the NRL’s superpowers in terms of spending on their football department — the gap is believed to be as much as $10 million between the biggest and smallest spenders.

“Clearly the conditions of our centre of excellence are not up to the standards we would like for a sporting organisation,” Go said.

“When you talk about equality of clubs … you also need to think about facilities. This is a real priority for us at the moment. We certainly had a conversation with them around how they might help us. Clearly it is a big consideration for us. We have always said we wouldn’t make a decision around our stadia strategy until we were very, very clear about the right path forward for the Wests Tigers.

“We will make a decision that’s in the best interests of the Wests Tigers because that’s what we have to do. Of course we want to be part of a decision that grows the entire sport and is great for the sport.

“The NRL with good reason is anxious about missing out on this potentially great deal with the state government. But as clubs we have to do what is right for our club and our members.

“Hopefully the two will coincide.”

Go also rejected suggestions the club would fall into line with the game’s governing body because the Balmain side of the joint venture had been propped up by the NRL. That $5m debt is due to be paid by close of business on Thursday, meaning 50 per cent of the Tigers is likely to hit the market come Friday morning unless Balmain can find the funds.

“They don’t own our club,” Go said of the NRL. “They certainly can’t tell us what to do and we’re certainly not going to do what they want purely because they have given one of our shareholders a lifeline.

“Let’s not forget the loan is with Balmain. That is independent to the decisions we make around the Wests Tigers. I don’t view the NRL as one of our shareholders in the current situation because that is a loan to Balmain.

“From our point of view, we will not fall into line with anybody. We will make decisions around what is best for Wests Tigers.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tigermama]

It has gone very quiet on this front
2 days to go before the deadline.

**<big>Wests Tigers vow to put own financial interests at top of list</big>**
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7cZOSaqaWhcJ:www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/nrl/wests-tigers-vow-to-put-own-financial-interests-at-top-of-list/news-story/64571cdfc4b0ff456bbe5e282472d69c+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk≷=au
THE AUSTRALIAN MARCH 29, 2016 12:00AM
Brent Read
Senior sports writer
Sydney

One of the most important weeks in Wests Tigers’ history has begun with chair Marina Go insisting the club must prioritise its own financial sustainability over the game’s desire to find a compromise on the future of Sydney stadiums.

Go stepped into the chair role with the club at its lowest ebb but the Tigers now find themselves negotiating from a position of strength given the influence they wield over the potential allocation of government funding towards Sydney’s major venues.

The joint venture is among four clubs whose future scheduling of home games could prove the difference between the state government devoting the lion’s share of its $1.6 billion stadium funding to ANZ Stadium, or instead directing it towards a new ground adjacent to Allianz Stadium.

The NRL has until Friday to lock in 65 games necessary to ensure the funding is forthcoming — the same day a 50 per cent share in the Tigers is expected to hit the open market.

The Tigers currently play four games apiece at Leichhardt Oval, Campbelltown Stadium and ANZ Stadium but it is believed the NRL would like the club to commit at least eight games to one of the city’s major grounds as part of the new agreement.

Go declined to reveal the Tigers’ plans, other than to say any decision would be centred around the ramifications for the club’s long-term future.

“We are going to make a decision that is based on the future financial sustainability of this organisation,” Go said. “That has to be a priority. It has been the board’s priority since day one. Some of our stakeholders know there is going to be some pain along the way.

“As a board we’re not afraid of that. We have made some bold decisions and will continue to do so.

“We’re trying to assess the full picture. That doesn’t mean we can’t make an in-principle decision around stadia. But clearly we need to make sure there is some financial gain for us in doing so.

“We’re not going to put our club in a position where we’re worse off because of a whole-of-game decision.”

Go confirmed the club had spoken to the NRL about helping fund a Centre of Excellence as part of the negotiations.

The Tigers lag behind some of the NRL’s superpowers in terms of spending on their football department — the gap is believed to be as much as $10 million between the biggest and smallest spenders.

“Clearly the conditions of our centre of excellence are not up to the standards we would like for a sporting organisation,” Go said.

“When you talk about equality of clubs … you also need to think about facilities. This is a real priority for us at the moment. We certainly had a conversation with them around how they might help us. Clearly it is a big consideration for us. We have always said we wouldn’t make a decision around our stadia strategy until we were very, very clear about the right path forward for the Wests Tigers.

“We will make a decision that’s in the best interests of the Wests Tigers because that’s what we have to do. Of course we want to be part of a decision that grows the entire sport and is great for the sport.

“The NRL with good reason is anxious about missing out on this potentially great deal with the state government. But as clubs we have to do what is right for our club and our members.

“Hopefully the two will coincide.”

Go also rejected suggestions the club would fall into line with the game’s governing body because the Balmain side of the joint venture had been propped up by the NRL. That $5m debt is due to be paid by close of business on Thursday, meaning 50 per cent of the Tigers is likely to hit the market come Friday morning unless Balmain can find the funds.

“They don’t own our club,” Go said of the NRL. “They certainly can’t tell us what to do and we’re certainly not going to do what they want purely because they have given one of our shareholders a lifeline.

“Let’s not forget the loan is with Balmain. That is independent to the decisions we make around the Wests Tigers. I don’t view the NRL as one of our shareholders in the current situation because that is a loan to Balmain.

“From our point of view, we will not fall into line with anybody. We will make decisions around what is best for Wests Tigers.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like her… Go girl!

 

[Patts]

It has gone very quiet on this front
2 days to go before the deadline.

**<big>Wests Tigers vow to put own financial interests at top of list</big>**
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7cZOSaqaWhcJ:www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/nrl/wests-tigers-vow-to-put-own-financial-interests-at-top-of-list/news-story/64571cdfc4b0ff456bbe5e282472d69c+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk≷=au
THE AUSTRALIAN MARCH 29, 2016 12:00AM
Brent Read
Senior sports writer
Sydney

One of the most important weeks in Wests Tigers’ history has begun with chair Marina Go insisting the club must prioritise its own financial sustainability over the game’s desire to find a compromise on the future of Sydney stadiums.

Go stepped into the chair role with the club at its lowest ebb but the Tigers now find themselves negotiating from a position of strength given the influence they wield over the potential allocation of government funding towards Sydney’s major venues.

The joint venture is among four clubs whose future scheduling of home games could prove the difference between the state government devoting the lion’s share of its $1.6 billion stadium funding to ANZ Stadium, or instead directing it towards a new ground adjacent to Allianz Stadium.

The NRL has until Friday to lock in 65 games necessary to ensure the funding is forthcoming — the same day a 50 per cent share in the Tigers is expected to hit the open market.

The Tigers currently play four games apiece at Leichhardt Oval, Campbelltown Stadium and ANZ Stadium but it is believed the NRL would like the club to commit at least eight games to one of the city’s major grounds as part of the new agreement.

Go declined to reveal the Tigers’ plans, other than to say any decision would be centred around the ramifications for the club’s long-term future.

“We are going to make a decision that is based on the future financial sustainability of this organisation,” Go said. “That has to be a priority. It has been the board’s priority since day one. Some of our stakeholders know there is going to be some pain along the way.

“As a board we’re not afraid of that. We have made some bold decisions and will continue to do so.

“We’re trying to assess the full picture. That doesn’t mean we can’t make an in-principle decision around stadia. But clearly we need to make sure there is some financial gain for us in doing so.

“We’re not going to put our club in a position where we’re worse off because of a whole-of-game decision.”

Go confirmed the club had spoken to the NRL about helping fund a Centre of Excellence as part of the negotiations.

The Tigers lag behind some of the NRL’s superpowers in terms of spending on their football department — the gap is believed to be as much as $10 million between the biggest and smallest spenders.

“Clearly the conditions of our centre of excellence are not up to the standards we would like for a sporting organisation,” Go said.

“When you talk about equality of clubs … you also need to think about facilities. This is a real priority for us at the moment. We certainly had a conversation with them around how they might help us. Clearly it is a big consideration for us. We have always said we wouldn’t make a decision around our stadia strategy until we were very, very clear about the right path forward for the Wests Tigers.

“We will make a decision that’s in the best interests of the Wests Tigers because that’s what we have to do. Of course we want to be part of a decision that grows the entire sport and is great for the sport.

“The NRL with good reason is anxious about missing out on this potentially great deal with the state government. But as clubs we have to do what is right for our club and our members.

“Hopefully the two will coincide.”

Go also rejected suggestions the club would fall into line with the game’s governing body because the Balmain side of the joint venture had been propped up by the NRL. That $5m debt is due to be paid by close of business on Thursday, meaning 50 per cent of the Tigers is likely to hit the market come Friday morning unless Balmain can find the funds.

“They don’t own our club,” Go said of the NRL. “They certainly can’t tell us what to do and we’re certainly not going to do what they want purely because they have given one of our shareholders a lifeline.

“Let’s not forget the loan is with Balmain. That is independent to the decisions we make around the Wests Tigers. I don’t view the NRL as one of our shareholders in the current situation because that is a loan to Balmain.

“From our point of view, we will not fall into line with anybody. We will make decisions around what is best for Wests Tigers.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like her… Go girl!

Lol nice pun

In all seriousness though the potential future owner of 50% of our team should have nothing to do with stadium agreements but the sceptic in me thinks the NRL will play this card while they are assessing suitors. Spells bad news for LO and probably CO as well.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

That's what i don't get. If he wants to pay off Balmain's debt in exchange for their half of the JV there's nothing anyone can do about it. If Balmain want's to sell their share for $5 million is another question. Given if Balmain don't sell they they walk away empty handed you'd think it's in the best interests to sell to Bryden's as they get cash and representative with similar values to their own on the board.

If Balmain doesn't sell in the next week then they have no control over what happens to their half and who's interests they represent.

The one issue i can possibly see is the terms of the repayment of the debt to the NRL. Do they require an upfront payment in full? Or are they happy just to get their money back and will take a payment plan with strict legal conditions attached?

If Bryden's pay cash up front there's nothing anyone but Balmain can do to stop them owning half the JV.

This is where the confusion lies I believe.

He simply offered to buy Balmain's share of the JV for $5m.

He didn't offer to buy Blamain as a club, nor exchange the debt for Shares.

It was an offer to buy 50% of the Wests Tigers in his personal name, for the sum of $5m.

That's why I suggested he simply buy Balmain, if they agree to sell, for that price. However to do so, he would need to stump up $5.4m to the NRL upfront to avoid Balmain defaulting on the Loan. That may be where this idea trips up, as he may not have the $5.4m upfront.

That makes no sense at all - whoever wants the 50% has to pay the NRL 5.4 mil to clear the debt owed to them. Nowhere since this debacle started have I seen that on top of the 5.4 mil you would also then have to pay a purchase price as well. I'm not saying that's not the case just that I have not seen or heard about it anywhere.

I'm no expert on what's happening, but as far as I can see. Balmain has nothing to sell except their share of
WTs. If someone buys the Balmain club for 5.4 mill. That would go straight to the NRL to pay back their loan, and Balmain would therefore get nothing.
It would take more than one person wanting to buy it for Balmain to get any money for themselves. And I can't see people lining up to get into a bidding war for it.
The main thing that I wouldn't wouldn't want to see is more than one person buying parts of Balmains share, and WRs ending up with different owner groups
We could end up like Manly with groups at each other's throats.
I would rather that one entity ended up owning the club, but definitely no more than two..