The inherent risk that goes to the very heart of the Premiership deal
With the owners of the Gallagher Premiership clubs set to meet this Tuesday to discuss the £275m offer from CVC Capital Partners for a controlling stake in the competition, the future of English and European rugby is about to be shaped.
Admittedly, this could all be moot if Bruce Craig, the owner of Bath, hasn’t changed his stance of being unwilling to sell, as the decision needs to be unanimously supported by all the owners of the current 12 Premiership sides, as well as London Irish.
Bristol Bears’ ownership does not seem to be convinced, either, with Stephen Lansdown having not come out as for or against the proposed takeover bid. With Craig and Lansdown two of the more cash-rich owners in the competition, their need for funding is lesser and the costs of giving up their controlling stake in the competition arguably outweigh the benefits of the reported £17m cash injection each club would be set to receive.
According to the initial report by the Times, Craig’s issue lies with the valuation of the Premiership at £550m, which he believes is short of the competition’s actual value. Given that the Premiership clubs contract up all the top tier professional players in England, have established infrastructure for bringing through the next generation of talent and that TV deals for the competition are rising, he may have a point.
Continue reading below…
The TV deal that Premier Rugby Ltd signed with BT Sport in 2012 was for £152m over a five-year period, whilst the extension that was agreed in 2015, for the 2017-2021 period, is believed to be significantly larger. It could well be that CVC see the next deal as following that trend and providing a further increase to the pot of cash that is divvied up between the member clubs.
That said, on paper, CVC’s offer looks a good one and would prove beneficial to English rugby.
The private equity firm are seeking a 51% and controlling stake in the competition for their investment, something which they reportedly insist would only see them exert their voting control on commercial matters.
Given the commercial success CVC enjoyed with their previous flagship sporting endeavour, Formula 1, that could be argued as a benefit, not a cost, to CVC’s bid. They certainly increased the value of that sport and helped it realise its global ambitions, although with F1 a non-domestic competition and already possessing significant commercial appeal, that is a job that would be more challenging with the Premiership.
Admittedly, rugby is growing as a sport globally. With the Premiership now broadcast in over 200 countries and the competition having been at the spearhead of getting its games shown in growing markets, CVC seem to see their £275m offer as a risk worth taking, with the opportunity to get in before any potential swells in global support as too good to pass up.
Domestically, the Premiership does not command the same commercial value as the Top 14 in France, which signed a four-year £305m TV deal back in 2016, although that deal also covers the Pro D2 and doesn’t come into being until the 2019-20 season. Whether or not CVC see potential in a PRL bid to takeover the Greene King IPA Championship, which is currently administrated by the RFU, as possible is unknown, but it is believed they would be eager to make more of the international broadcasting deals the Premiership currently has in place, something which would help the competition keep pace with their French rivals.
If CVC were to exert their influence and expertise on the commercial side of the competition alone, the deal would look acceptable. Unfortunately, and this is something Gloucester fans can attest to, rugby is not a sport decided on paper, and the same extends to boardrooms.
As a private equity firm, CVC are in this to make a sizeable return on their investment. They are not in this to protect the players, the clubs or even the status quo in the Premiership, should they become disenchanted with the prospect of selling the competition on for a profit.
They may play ball for two or three years but if the commercial appeal of the competition is not rising, or rising too slowly, the desire to keep international players available for as many games as possible per season will be significant and this will be used as leverage to get more compensation out of the RFU for the release of those players.
You couldn’t blame CVC for this, it would be their job to make a profit out of this enterprise, should it go ahead, and the goals of superior player welfare, sustainability and the England national team aren’t always going to be in alignment with that. If you get in the water with a shark, you can’t blame it for biting you, it’s just in their nature.
Yes, there is a best-case scenario whereby CVC remain a sleeping partner on all issues other than commercial interests and they put a premium on player welfare and a healthy relationship between PRL and the RFU because of the on-field, PR and symbiotic success that it could have. Hoping for a best-case scenario is one thing, but it cannot be expected to happen, and the worst-case scenario of players flogged, a club-country agreement in tatters and inflated player wages as a result of significant cash investment has to be considered.
The word coming out of the PRL camp last week that the investment, if accepted, would be used by each club to improve their facilities and stadiums, not on new players, therefore avoiding another hike in salary expectations. Whilst well-meaning and possibly true that the money would be diverted to infrastructure and creating a more sustainable future, an influx of cash of that proportion into a competition cannot possibly avoid raising salary expectations.
Even if it is not earmarked for player recruitment and retention, the knowledge of this extra financial firepower at each club would draw the attention of players and agents alike, who would be eager to see their efforts, or the efforts of their clients, more suitably rewarded. It is not an unfair request, either, as the players are a huge component in the Premiership being valued at what it is and without them, there would be no offer forthcoming from CVC.
If wages are inflated further than they currently are, and the current season structure remains the same, this is almost certainly going to require an increase to the salary cap, something which PRL have promised to keep at current levels for this season and the 2019-20 campaign.
This puts the spotlight back on sustainability, something currently all but one Premiership club struggle with. An increase to the cap is not going to help the goals the other 11 Premiership clubs have of breaking even each season, even if most of that £17m does go into improving facilities and expanding stadiums. The cash-rich clubs will continue to push the limits of a newly-expanded cap and the other sides will be playing catch up, likely overextending themselves and spending beyond their means.
This is why the offer from CVC is not necessarily the long-term golden egg that some of the more cash-strapped Premiership owners see it as in the short-term. The question is, can CVC raise the commercial appeal and revenue-generating ability of the Premiership in time for it to sufficiently compensate clubs who will be paying out the increased salaries a cash injection would create in the coming years?
With the opposition to the offer believed to be growing within PRL, which has seen an 80% growth since the competition’s valuation of £300m in 2013, the onus looks to be on CVC to increase their offer, which a number of figures within PRL believe to be significantly undervaluing the competition, or for PRL to look at alternative avenues.
Mark McCafferty, PRL’s chief executive, has suggested that floating the competition on the stock market is a possibility, as is loaning from a bank. Of course, there is also the option of carrying on as is, with individual owners continuing to underwrite clubs that are struggling financially.
Ultimately, this is not always the issue that red ink and social media overreaction portray it to be, with a number of clubs content to swallow those losses, as the tax benefits that can be achieved from owning a sports team can actually see an individual or ownership group break even personally, even if the club itself loses money. The goal is of course still sustainability and some clubs are closer to realising that than others, but it is not quite the dire situation that the numbers alone suggest it is.
There’s no doubt that £17m apiece for the clubs could do a lot for them in the coming years.
Continue reading below…
It would allow reigning champions Saracens to forge ahead with their plans to redevelop the no longer fit for purposes West Stand, Harlequins would have the necessary investment to expand the Stoop and Bath, despite Craig’s opposition, would see their kitty topped up ahead of plans to build a new stadium. It would help balance the books at Northampton Saints and Leicester Tigers after recent investment by both in their stadiums, whilst Newcastle Falcons, Gloucester and Exeter Chiefs are also sides who have expressed interest in recent seasons of expanding their capacities.
Is it enough to sell off the future of the competition, though?
The answer would seem to be a no, with significant opposition from within PRL, as well as scope for the competition’s value to continue increasing over the coming years. There is little to no chance of another 80% rise in valuation over the next five years, which was strongly influenced by the switch from Sky to BT Sport for a larger broadcast deal and the increased leverage of the Premiership over the new European competitions, but a steadier rise is certainly still possible.
Selling off early, and possibly undervalued, would not make for good business practice, although the frustrations of clubs with smaller support and/or the lack of a wealthy benefactor would be understandable, as they struggle with their bids for sustainability.
The owners will meet on Tuesday to discuss the offer and decide on their strategy moving forward, but it seems as if it will take a considerable increase in offer from CVC for certain figures within PRL to change their stance.
Comments on RugbyPass
Thanks BeeMc! Looks like many teams need extra time to settle from the quadrennial northern migration. I think generally the quality of the Rugby has held up. Fiji has been fantastic and fun to watch
13 Go to commentsLets compare apples with apples. Lyon sent weak team the week before, but nobody raised an eyebrow. Give the South African teams a few years to build their depth, then you will be moaning that the teams are too strong.
41 Go to commentsDid footballs agents also perform the scout role at some time? I’m surprised more high profile players haven’t taken up the occupation, great way to remain in the game and use all that experience without really requiring a lot of specific expertise?
1 Go to commentsSuper rugby is struggling but that has little to do with sabbaticals. 1. Too many teams from Aust and NZ - should be 3 and 4 respectively, add in 2 from Japan, 1 possibly 2 from Argentina. 2. Inconsistent and poor refereeing, admittedly not restricted to Super rugby. Only one team was reffed at the breakdown in Reds v H’Landers match. Scrum penalty awarded in Canes v Drua when No 8 had the ball in the open with little defence nearby - ideal opportunity to play advantage. Coming back to Reds match - same scrum situation but ref played advantage - Landers made 10 yards and were penalised at the breakdown when the ref should have returned to scrum penalty. 3. Marketing is weak and losing ground to AFL and NRL. Playing 2 days compared with 4. 4. Scheduling is unattractive to family attendance. Have any franchises heard of Sundays 2pm?
11 Go to commentsAbsolutely..all they need is a chance in yhe playoffs and I bet all the other teams will be nervous…THEY KNOW HOW TO WIN IM THE PLAYOFFS..
2 Go to commentsI really hope he comes back and helps out with some coaching.
1 Go to commentsI think we are all just hoping that the Olympic 7s doesn’t suffer the same sad fate as the last RWC with the officials ruining the spectacle.
1 Go to commentsPersonally, I’ve lost the will to even be bothered about the RFU, the structure, the participants. It’s all a sham. I now simply enjoy getting a group of friends together to go and watch a few games a year in different locations (including Europe, the championship, etc). I feel extremely sorry for the real fans of these clubs who are constantly ignored by the RFU and other administrators. I feel especially sorry for the fans of clubs in the Championship who have had considerable central funding stripped away and are then expected to just take whatever the RFU put to them. Its all a sham, especially if the failed clubs are allowed to return.
9 Go to commentsI’m guessing Carl Hayman would have preferred to have stayed in NZ with benefit of hindsight. Up north there is the expectation to play twice as many games with far less ‘player management’ protocols that Paul is now criticising. Less playing through concussions means longer, healthier, careers. Carter used as the eg here by Paul, his sabbatical allowed him to play until age 37. OK its not an exact science but there is far more expectations on players who sign for Top 14 or Engl Prem clubs to get value for the huge salaries. NZR get alot wrong but keeping their best players in NZ rugby is not one of them. SA clubs are virtually devoid of their top players now, no thanks. They cant threaten the big teams in the Champions Cup, the squads have little depth. Cant see Canes/Chiefs struggling. Super has been great this year, fantastic high skill matches. Drua a fantastic addition and Jaguares will add another quality team eventually. Aus teams performing strongly and no doubt will benefit with the incentive of a Lions tour and a home RWC. Let Jordie enjoy his time with Leinster, it will allow the opportunity for another player to emerge at Canes in his absence.
11 Go to commentsLove that man, his way to despise angry little men is so funny ! 😂
4 Go to comments“South African franchises would be powerhouses if we had all our overseas based players back in situ. We would have the same unbeatable aura the Toulouses, Leinsters or Saracens of this world have had over the last decade or so.” Proof that Jake white does not understand the economics of the game in SA. Players earning abroad are not going to simply come back and represent the bulls. But they might if they have a springbok contract.
22 Go to commentsA lot of fans just joined in for the fun of it! We all admire O'Gara and what he has done for La Rochelle
4 Go to commentsThe RFU will find a way to mess this up as usual. My bet is there will be no promotion into the the Premiership, only relegation into National League One. Hopefully they won’t parachute failed clubs into the league at the expense of clubs who have battled for promotion.
9 Go to commentsWell that’s the contracts for RG and Jordie bought and paid for. Now, what are the chances we can persuade Antoine to hop over with all the extra dosh we’ll have from living at the Aviva & Croke next season…??? 🤑🤑🤑
35 Go to commentsWow, that’s incredible. Great for rugby.
35 Go to commentsYou probably read that parling is going to coach the wallaby lineout but if not before now you have.
14 Go to commentsIf someone like Leo Cullen was in O’Gara’s place I don’t hear Boo-ing. It’s not just that La Rochelle has hurt Leinster and O’Gara is their Irish boss. It’s the needle that he brings and the pantomime activity before the game around pretending that Munster were supporting LaRochelle just because O’Gara is from Cork. That’s dividing Irish provinces just to get an advantage for his French Team. He can F*ck right off with that. BOOOOO! (but not while someone is lying injured)
4 Go to commentsDid the highlanders party too hard before the game? They were the pits.
1 Go to commentsWhat a player! Not long until he’s in the England side, surely?
5 Go to commentsHe seems to have the same aura as Marcus Smith - by which I mean he’s consistently judged as if he’s several years younger than he actually is. Mngomezulu has played 24 times for the Stormers. When Pollard was his age he had played 24 times for South Africa! He has more time to develop, but he has also had time to do some developing already, and he hasn’t demonstrated nearly as much talent in that time as one would expect. If he is a generational talent, then it must be a pretty poor generation.
6 Go to comments