Revealed: Secret bid to buy battling Tigers

[TigerTownSFS]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money. Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time. In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go. Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

 

[Tiger5150]

How much would 50% of the club would be worth ?

1 PIE a Can of Coke and a chiko roll.. based on performance...ALL ROUND..

Sounds about right 🙂

The only reason I ask is, I heard on the radio a shareholder in the Broncos wants to sell his 20% share for 10 Million, so we would be no where near that I would assume.

It's relative to the worth of the business..I mean it's coming with a State of the Art COE...anyone with development money looking to invest around...provide jobs etc..


The COE is not an asset and doesnt contribute to the value of the company. We are tenants.

Ever heard of a selling point or good will...


You cant sell something you dont own so its not a selling point. Goodwill is forecast sales and the CoE doesnt increase sales.

Its a good thing, Im glad its coming but contributes zero to a balance sheet. Just a fact.

Have you met Benny Elias..you can sell a dream..

Only if you have a buyer..

 

[cochise]

How much would 50% of the club would be worth ?

1 PIE a Can of Coke and a chiko roll.. based on performance...ALL ROUND..

Sounds about right 🙂

The only reason I ask is, I heard on the radio a shareholder in the Broncos wants to sell his 20% share for 10 Million, so we would be no where near that I would assume.

It's relative to the worth of the business..I mean it's coming with a State of the Art COE...anyone with development money looking to invest around...provide jobs etc..

Do we own that building?

Was funded by the Club so you would hope at least..

I thought we got funding from govts etc. I thought someone said we didnt put money in at all , just arranged funding? great assett to have if its ours.

The Concord Oval upgrade is funded by the NSW Government through the Parramatta Road Urban Amenity Improvement Program and the Office of Sport, with further funding from the City of Canada Bay, Australian Government and Wests Tigers

 

[Geo]

How much would 50% of the club would be worth ?

1 PIE a Can of Coke and a chiko roll.. based on performance...ALL ROUND..

Sounds about right 🙂

The only reason I ask is, I heard on the radio a shareholder in the Broncos wants to sell his 20% share for 10 Million, so we would be no where near that I would assume.

It's relative to the worth of the business..I mean it's coming with a State of the Art COE...anyone with development money looking to invest around...provide jobs etc..


The COE is not an asset and doesnt contribute to the value of the company. We are tenants.

Ever heard of a selling point or good will...


You cant sell something you dont own so its not a selling point. Goodwill is forecast sales and the CoE doesnt increase sales.

Its a good thing, Im glad its coming but contributes zero to a balance sheet. Just a fact.

Have you met Benny Elias..you can sell a dream..


Only if you have a buyer..

Not Sell the asset...sell the use of facilities

 

[hobbo1]

How much would 50% of the club would be worth ?

1 PIE a Can of Coke and a chiko roll.. based on performance...ALL ROUND..

Sounds about right 🙂

The only reason I ask is, I heard on the radio a shareholder in the Broncos wants to sell his 20% share for 10 Million, so we would be no where near that I would assume.

It's relative to the worth of the business..I mean it's coming with a State of the Art COE...anyone with development money looking to invest around...provide jobs etc..


The COE is not an asset and doesnt contribute to the value of the company. We are tenants.

Ever heard of a selling point or good will...


You cant sell something you dont own so its not a selling point. Goodwill is forecast sales and the CoE doesnt increase sales.

Its a good thing, Im glad its coming but contributes zero to a balance sheet. Just a fact.

Have you met Benny Elias..you can sell a dream..


Only if you have a buyer..

Not Sell the asset...sell the use of facilities

How much rent will the barber have to pay ?

 

[Tiger5150]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

 

[Tiger5150]

How much would 50% of the club would be worth ?

1 PIE a Can of Coke and a chiko roll.. based on performance...ALL ROUND..

Sounds about right 🙂

The only reason I ask is, I heard on the radio a shareholder in the Broncos wants to sell his 20% share for 10 Million, so we would be no where near that I would assume.

It's relative to the worth of the business..I mean it's coming with a State of the Art COE...anyone with development money looking to invest around...provide jobs etc..


The COE is not an asset and doesnt contribute to the value of the company. We are tenants.

Ever heard of a selling point or good will...


You cant sell something you dont own so its not a selling point. Goodwill is forecast sales and the CoE doesnt increase sales.

Its a good thing, Im glad its coming but contributes zero to a balance sheet. Just a fact.

Have you met Benny Elias..you can sell a dream..


Only if you have a buyer..

Not Sell the asset...sell the use of facilities

Canada Bay Council owns the facilities and leases them out. Im not sure the agreement with Tigers would include sub letting.

 

[TigerTownSFS]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

I’d suggest owning a club that is on TV watched by hundreds of thousands of people a week has value.

Football clubs are not a bank stock paying a dividend. They are more analogous to a rare painting or a house with harbour views. They are not valued on their cash flows, they are worth what their owners want to pay for them.

Also, if you haven’t noticed assets with zero cash flows have increased quite a bit recently

 

[mike]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

A football club is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it. It doesn’t have to be an asset to be worth something. The analogy with a normal company who’s goal is to make money for its shareholder(s) does not apply.

 

[Geo]

Mike gets it..

 

[PJ_]

How much would 50% of the club would be worth ?

1 PIE a Can of Coke and a chiko roll.. based on performance...ALL ROUND..

Sounds about right 🙂

The only reason I ask is, I heard on the radio a shareholder in the Broncos wants to sell his 20% share for 10 Million, so we would be no where near that I would assume.

It's relative to the worth of the business..I mean it's coming with a State of the Art COE...anyone with development money looking to invest around...provide jobs etc..


The COE is not an asset and doesnt contribute to the value of the company. We are tenants.

Ever heard of a selling point or good will...


You cant sell something you dont own so its not a selling point. Goodwill is forecast sales and the CoE doesnt increase sales.

Its a good thing, Im glad its coming but contributes zero to a balance sheet. Just a fact.

Have you met Benny Elias..you can sell a dream..


Only if you have a buyer..

Not Sell the asset...sell the use of facilities

How much rent will the barber have to pay ?

Free rent. As long as the guys look good playing footy, who cares about winning.

 

[Tiger5150]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

I’d suggest owning a club that is on TV watched by hundreds of thousands of people a week has value.

Thats the problem with the NRL clubs as assets. Watched by thousands of people a week does have a value. That value is the media deal. That value then goes to the NRL and they divide a portion of it up into 16 and gives it to the clubs as a grant. The only other value out of that is as marketing to potential sponsors and based on the last 20 years that has not been profitable for the clubs.

V'Landys recently spoke to the clubs telling them to expect the new media deal to be less. 10 have pulled out, 7 offer half of 9....new players hesitant...

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-preparing-to-get-back-in-the-black-as-tv-talks-ramp-up-20210226-p5768c.html


Football clubs are not a bank stock paying a dividend. They are more analogous to a rare painting or a house with harbour views. They are not valued on their cash flows, they are worth what their owners want to pay for them.

I am not talking about cash flow. Cash flow is irrelevant. Return on Investment (ROI) or capital gain is everything. I spoke about revenue in my post because that is ALL the clubs really have.

In your examples a rare painting is a RARE commodity and as a result will gain in value. Same with houses with harbour views. The opportunity to lose or not make money is not a rare commodity.


Also, if you haven’t noticed assets with zero cash flows have increased quite a bit recently.

Again, talking about ROI or capital gain. If you mean property, clearly there is a capital gain.

Im not looking at getting into an argument about this, couldnt really be bothered. Simply making the point that there is no structural or systemic value in a NRL club. My initial response to you wasnt...."you are wrong or full of it"....it was why? My point being there is no financial reason for NRL clubs to have a high or increasing value.

Like you said, anything is worth what people are prepared to pay for it but the fact that the clubs dont make a profit and no ROI will obviously have a depressive impact on that value. If there was tremendous and growing value in owning an NRL club, why isnt there a market for it? Why dont we see rich businessmen lining up to but them and resell them?

 

[Tiger5150]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

A football club is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it. It doesn’t have to be an asset to be worth something.

Sure thats a tenet of a free market but the fact that the NRL clubs dont make a significant profit or ROI obviously has a depressive impact on that value. If ownership of an NRL club is such a valuable commodity, why isnt there a market for it? Why do we not see rich businessmen lining up to buy them and resell them?

>The analogy with a normal company who’s goal is to make money for its shareholder(s) does not apply.

Why not? Seriously why not? Does capitalism and free markets have its own little subsection for NRL clubs?

 

[mike]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

A football club is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it. It doesn’t have to be an asset to be worth something.

Sure thats a tenet of a free market but the fact that the NRL clubs dont make a significant profit or ROI obviously has a depressive impact on that value. If ownership of an NRL club is such a valuable commodity, why isnt there a market for it? Why do we not see rich businessmen lining up to buy them and resell them?

>The analogy with a normal company who’s goal is to make money for its shareholder(s) does not apply.

Why not? Seriously why not? Does capitalism and free markets have its own little subsection for NRL clubs?

Because their are other drivers to owning an NRL club that are not aligned with making money or should I say a profit. It has nothing todo with capitalism.

 

[Tiger5150]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

A football club is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it. It doesn’t have to be an asset to be worth something.

Sure thats a tenet of a free market but the fact that the NRL clubs dont make a significant profit or ROI obviously has a depressive impact on that value. If ownership of an NRL club is such a valuable commodity, why isnt there a market for it? Why do we not see rich businessmen lining up to buy them and resell them?

>The analogy with a normal company who’s goal is to make money for its shareholder(s) does not apply.

Why not? Seriously why not? Does capitalism and free markets have its own little subsection for NRL clubs?

Because their are other drivers to owning an NRL club that are not aligned with making money or should I say a profit. It has nothing todo with capitalism.

Sure and I dont disagree with that, but my original point was regarding the post saying that these franchises have increasing value. There is no systemic or structural reason for increasing value unless there is a ROI.

If someone wants to pay an amount as a folly, then the value is whatever they want to pay and the owner will take obviously, but this is not an increasing market. ITs not even an existing market (Where is the queue of investors?).

IMO Benny's forecast ROI was I reckon he would have sold us up off to Perth.

 

[mike]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

A football club is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it. It doesn’t have to be an asset to be worth something.

Sure thats a tenet of a free market but the fact that the NRL clubs dont make a significant profit or ROI obviously has a depressive impact on that value. If ownership of an NRL club is such a valuable commodity, why isnt there a market for it? Why do we not see rich businessmen lining up to buy them and resell them?

>The analogy with a normal company who’s goal is to make money for its shareholder(s) does not apply.

Why not? Seriously why not? Does capitalism and free markets have its own little subsection for NRL clubs?

Because their are other drivers to owning an NRL club that are not aligned with making money or should I say a profit. It has nothing todo with capitalism.


Sure and I dont disagree with that, but my original point was regarding the post saying that these franchises have increasing value. There is no systemic or structural reason for increasing value unless there is a ROI.

If someone wants to pay an amount as a folly, then the value is whatever they want to pay and the owner will take obviously, but this is not an increasing market.

IMO Benny's forecast ROI was I reckon he would have sold us up off to Perth.

If someone

Fair enough.

Edit: Though I would not call it a folly. Not everything has to have a monetary value to be valuable.

 

[Tiger5150]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

A football club is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it. It doesn’t have to be an asset to be worth something.

Sure thats a tenet of a free market but the fact that the NRL clubs dont make a significant profit or ROI obviously has a depressive impact on that value. If ownership of an NRL club is such a valuable commodity, why isnt there a market for it? Why do we not see rich businessmen lining up to buy them and resell them?

>The analogy with a normal company who’s goal is to make money for its shareholder(s) does not apply.

Why not? Seriously why not? Does capitalism and free markets have its own little subsection for NRL clubs?

Because their are other drivers to owning an NRL club that are not aligned with making money or should I say a profit. It has nothing todo with capitalism.


Sure and I dont disagree with that, but my original point was regarding the post saying that these franchises have increasing value. There is no systemic or structural reason for increasing value unless there is a ROI.

If someone wants to pay an amount as a folly, then the value is whatever they want to pay and the owner will take obviously, but this is not an increasing market.

IMO Benny's forecast ROI was I reckon he would have sold us up off to Perth.

If someone

Fair enough.

Edit: Though I would not call it a folly. Not everything has to have a monetary value to be valuable.

Call it a toy or plaything then....

 

[TigerTownSFS]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

A football club is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it. It doesn’t have to be an asset to be worth something.

Sure thats a tenet of a free market but the fact that the NRL clubs dont make a significant profit or ROI obviously has a depressive impact on that value. If ownership of an NRL club is such a valuable commodity, why isnt there a market for it? Why do we not see rich businessmen lining up to buy them and resell them?

>The analogy with a normal company who’s goal is to make money for its shareholder(s) does not apply.

Why not? Seriously why not? Does capitalism and free markets have its own little subsection for NRL clubs?

“Billionaire hedge fund manager Steve Cohen on Friday completed the purchase of the New York Mets baseball team in a reported $2.4 billion deal, a record for a North American sports franchise.”

This is hedge fund manager Steve Cohn buying the New York Mets for $2.4b. The Mets made an operating loss of $125m in 2020.

 

[happy_tiger]

How much would 50% of the club would be worth ?

1 PIE a Can of Coke and a chiko roll.. based on performance...ALL ROUND..

Sounds about right 🙂

The only reason I ask is, I heard on the radio a shareholder in the Broncos wants to sell his 20% share for 10 Million, so we would be no where near that I would assume.

It's relative to the worth of the business..I mean it's coming with a State of the Art COE...anyone with development money looking to invest around...provide jobs etc..


The COE is not an asset and doesnt contribute to the value of the company. We are tenants.

With a lease ...maybe we should share multiple COE's like the home ground fiasco

 

[Tiger5150]

If you look at sport globally the brand and the franchise is worth a lot of money.

Strongly disagree. Any asset is only worth a multiple of the possible return on investment (ROI). What is the ROI of an NRL "franchise"? Seriously. Other than Brisbane, none of the club consistently make profits and even when they do (or dont) more than 50% of their revenue is a grant from the NRL, Its a terrible business model, the whole NRL is. The whole NRL set up with its agreements for club Grants and the fact the grants and salary cap at fixed to revenue restricts profits.

Other than fixed assets, which most of the clubs have almost none, the only assets are future sales and NRL grants and these are almost by design totally chewed up ensuring no profit (salary cap tied to grant).

There is no ROI on an NRL club and therefore almost no value.

>Whilst the club may not make a profit we have only really been in the post super league professional era for a decade and already clubs like Rabbits and Easts are building extremely strong brands that will increase in value over time.

Why will they increase in value in time? What is the source of income for the Roosters and Souths? More than 50% is the grant which is tied to salaries and also the media deal (which can fluctuate).

>In the premier league and US sports these types of assets become play things of the rich and powerful and it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that is where these franchises go.

The premier league and US sports have the benefit of enormous markets that are not enjoyed by the NRL. Some (not all) EPL teams make ENORMOUS profits and this is the value of these assets. It simply doesnt exist in Australia ir the NRL.

>Crowe paid 1.5m for his 50% share and all up has probably invested something like $5m in Rabbits. That 50% would probably be worth at least $20m if not more.

The fact that Crowe continually tips in money makes the asset worth less not more. If Crowe was continually taking money out it would be worth something.

A football club is worth whatever people are prepared to pay for it. It doesn’t have to be an asset to be worth something.

Sure thats a tenet of a free market but the fact that the NRL clubs dont make a significant profit or ROI obviously has a depressive impact on that value. If ownership of an NRL club is such a valuable commodity, why isnt there a market for it? Why do we not see rich businessmen lining up to buy them and resell them?

>The analogy with a normal company who’s goal is to make money for its shareholder(s) does not apply.

Why not? Seriously why not? Does capitalism and free markets have its own little subsection for NRL clubs?

“Billionaire hedge fund manager Steve Cohen on Friday completed the purchase of the New York Mets baseball team in a reported $2.4 billion deal, a record for a North American sports franchise.”

This is hedge fund manager Steve Cohn buying the New York Mets for $2.4b. The Mets made an operating loss of $125m in 2020.

Perfect! Thank you for the perfect example to prove my point.

But before I do.......of course they made a loss in 2020, the year of Covid in the US.

Ok....MLB teams generate enormous revenue. The average annual revenue is US$440M and they make enormous profit. In 2019 every team made a profit with the average profit being US$40M (excluding capital gains on fixed assets), the Dodgers made US $95M profit.

When you make actual profits and these profit making systems are actual built into the organisation (the opposite of NRL) then you actually DO have an asset. Forbes value the actual enterprise value of the MLB teams which means actual equity plus debt. The Yankees (in the same market as Mets) are valued at US$4.6B. Based on their actual equity, Forbes value the Mets at US$2.3B so old mate Cohn didnt get a bad deal. These values exclude fixed assets .

Oh and Cohen bought the Mets from the Wilpon family, so there is that market again, that does not exist in the NRL.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/04/10/baseball-team-values-2019-yankees-lead-league-at-46-billion/?sh=4f40acef69b2