Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?
-
Not sure where else to post this.
'New Zealand All Blacks are world's most valuable rugby brand at US$282 million'
Wednesday, 11 October, 2023 - 12:01
The New Zealand All Blacks (brand value up 52% to USD282 million, NZD 452 million) have continued to assert their dominance as the world’s most valuable rugby team brand, despite their on-pitch authority increasingly being challenged by other rugby nations. The All Blacks retained the top position for brand value, achieving a 52% increase since the last world cup. This growth is attributed to robust revenues, particularly in sponsorship and merchandising over the past four years.
Every year, leading brand valuation consultancy Brand Finance puts 5,000 of the biggest brands to the test, and publishes over 100 reports, ranking brands across all sectors and countries. The world’s top 10 most valuable and strongest rugby team brands are included in the Brand Finance Rugby 10 2023 ranking.
Intense national pride in New Zealand’s rugby heritage and its globally recognised brand continues to drive revenue streams, such as merchandising and sponsorship agreements, including lucrative long-term kit partnerships with Adidas and Altrad. These brand-focused income streams contribute more significantly to the All Blacks' overall value than broadcasting and matchday earnings.
Mark Crowe, Managing Director, Australasia of Brand Finance commented:
"The revenue from sponsorship and merchandising which is driving the All Blacks’ brand value, in many ways, defies expectations, considering New Zealand's comparatively small economy and rugby market size when contrasted with the second and third-ranked brands - England and France. This underscores the undeniable allure and universal appeal that the All Blacks’ brand has cultivated beyond its home turf."
The All Blacks also remain strongest brand despite dip from 2019 peak
In addition to calculating brand value, Brand Finance also determines the relative strength of brands through a balanced scorecard of metrics including marketing investment via social media, stakeholder equity such as heritage, and business performance through revenues from sponsorship, merchandising, and so on.
The All Blacks were also the strongest brand in the ranking with a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score of 88.9 out of 100 and a corresponding AAA rating. However, it is worth noting that the New Zealand All Blacks’ BSI has experienced a decline since its peak in 2019. The primary factor behind its 6-point decrease is the dip in on-pitch performance in recent years, seeing the team drop to 4th position in World Rugby’s rankings, behind Ireland, France, and South Africa.
Despite this, the resilience of the All Blacks brand is evident in its capacity to maintain its value and strength, despite variations in key performance metrics. This underscores the pivotal role that a robust sporting brand plays in shielding a business from the inherent fluctuations in on-field results.
The Wallabies’ brand strength declines and faces post-World Cup challenges
Across the ditch the Wallabies face concerning challenges ahead. Australia Rugby’s teams Brand Strength Index (BSI) score has dropped significantly, falling 8 points since 2019, from 81 to 73 out of 100. This is the largest decline of all top 10 national rugby team brands. This decline is primarily driven by a weaker on-pitch performance which has reduced fan engagement and sentiment towards the Wallabies. The team’s early exit from the World Cup is likely to place further downward pressure on negative sentiment and the game’s popularity compared to other football codes and Australian sport in general. Looking ahead, this decline in brand strength is likely to also erode the Wallabies’ brand value, unless a significant effort made to restore perceptions and improve governance.
Mark Crowe, Managing Director, Australia of Brand Finance commented:
"The Wallabies brand faces immense pressure both on and off the pitch. Rugby Australia needs to balance the ability to compete against other rugby markets, like Europe and Japan, in providing competitive player renumeration while maintaining development programmes. The early exit from this year’s World Cup is going to intensify this pressure and now, more than ever, it is essential that Rugby Australia works to reform the game and improve participation."
England holds firm in second
England Rugby (brand value up 71% to USD264 million, GBP219 million) claim second spot once again, despite entering the World Cup on less-than-great form. England Rugby’s brand value growth is not without thanks to boasting the highest total revenue of all national rugby brands.
France surges to top 3 in terms of brand value and brand strength
France Rugby (brand value up 84% to USD159 million, EUR154 million) has emerged as one of the standout winners in this year’s ranking, surging into 3rd place both in terms of brand value and brand strength. This impressive growth can be attributed to the excitement surrounding the home World Cup and Les Blues’ outstanding team performance, currently ranked as the world’s number 2.
Ireland, the World Number 1 ranked team, overtakes Wales and South Africa
Propelled by its 15th Six Nations win in March 2023, Ireland Rugby (brand value up 94% to USD150 million, EUR145 million) is another rising brand as 2023’s fastest-grower. Ireland Rugby’s 94% increase in brand value has seen the current world’s number 1 overtake Wales Rugby (brand value up 23% to USD132 million, GBP109 million) and South Africa Rugby (brand value up 44% to USD117 million, ZAR1,989 million) to become the 4th most valuable national rugby team brand.
-
Still quite small beer when you consider the value of football clubs/NFL franchises etc
-
NZ Rugby's (silver) lake of fire
Another internecine rugby war looms; stadium stuff Pt LXVII; netball has issues; and why watching Will bat is so delightfully frustrating.
NZR's latest Silver Lake battle could head to High Court
The Rugby Players’ Association and New Zealand Rugby have resumed hostilities.
-
-
that paints a rosy picture
still dont quite have my head around this whole deal. I thought at least part of it was Silver Lake were going to leverage the brand overseas to generate more income...or have i made that up
and NZR had to pay them interest? so its more like a loan? i thought handing over equity meant they get a share of profits
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
and NZR had to pay them interest? so its more like a loan? i thought handing over equality meant they get a share of profits
Might be sloppy language from the NZ Herald. IIRC, Silver Lake gets a percentage of revenue (not profit), which seems like a very risky deal for NZ Rugby.
-
@Tim said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@Kiwiwomble said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
and NZR had to pay them interest? so its more like a loan? i thought handing over equality meant they get a share of profits
Might be sloppy language from the NZ Herald. IIRC, Silver Lake gets a percentage of revenue (not profit), which seems like a very risky deal for NZ Rugby.
Yup and big surprise there not that much money to leveraged on a fringe sport
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
and NZR had to pay them interest? so its more like a loan? i thought handing over equality meant they get a share of profits
Yikes equality
-
@Machpants said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@Tim said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
@Kiwiwomble said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
and NZR had to pay them interest? so its more like a loan? i thought handing over equality meant they get a share of profits
Might be sloppy language from the NZ Herald. IIRC, Silver Lake gets a percentage of revenue (not profit), which seems like a very risky deal for NZ Rugby.
Yup and big surprise there not that much money to leveraged on a fringe sport
im really feeling a bit slow because surely they had to spell out their plan....not just "trust us"
-
Lets tell a story of a rugby body that had about $200M of revenue each year, but struggled to make a profit on it. It was so up and down every year, but they generally broke even. Then they got a new boss who had an IQ of about 100, but he had suffered a lot of shots to the brain. He had a degree from one of the worst univeristies in NZ, and he got to go to a good one in the UK just to play rugby!
Luckily for this king, he had a really good friend who ran the private equity division of a really crappy "boutique" investment bank. He trusted his friend so much, because he was a subnormal retard. His friend told him that they could get so much money and all they had to do was give a fraction of raw revenue - not like a normal investor who buys a share of a company and gets a share of their profits.
Don't worry though, this company was from AMERICA - it's a magical kingdom where even irrelevant sports can get huge deals to make money.
It didn't happen though, they put their money into an app and there was no additional revenue. Now they owed $13M per year to this company who did nothing for them. But still they wanted more, despite how money they were losing. They put $20M into women's rugby because it was the right thing to do, but never made any money.
What to do?
Eventually they went bankrupt and all the good players were based overseas. Australia should have been a warning sign. The UK Premiership should have been a warning sign, but they were governed by the stupidest people in NZ. The rest were overseas.
-
-
@Tim I was kind of mystified as to how Silver Lake would be able to work miracles for NZR's revenue stream as well. If there were obvious ways to do it, you'd think we'd have seen them for ourselves - or just copied their model.
I've worked it out now.
Superbowl will be over next week and a couple of weeks later we'll find DMac will be dating Taylor Swift. We'll shift masses of AB #22 jerseys.
Don't worry about the height difference - DMac can stand on a box - we can afford one of those!
-
You couldn't make this up. After viewing the tripe throughout the last 4 years (WC excepting) it isn't surprising. How can a top world class rugby team not at least break even and be a stable haven for the sport.
Giving away equity makes me nauseous -
@BerniesCorner said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
You couldn't make this up. After viewing the tripe throughout the last 4 years (WC excepting) it isn't surprising. How can a top world class rugby team not at least break even and be a stable haven for the sport.
Giving away equity makes me nauseousBreaks almost every rule of economics
-
Is it fair that a handful of people in the NZR can have such a large effect on the future of NZ Rugby. Best team of any sport? in the world over the last 20 years and selling equity. OMG
-
@Tim said in Silver Lake buying a stake in the ABs?:
Lets tell a story of a rugby body that had about $200M of revenue each year, but struggled to make a profit on it. It was so up and down every year, but they generally broke even. Then they got a new boss who had an IQ of about 100, but he had suffered a lot of shots to the brain. He had a degree from one of the worst univeristies in NZ, and he got to go to a good one in the UK just to play rugby!
Luckily for this king, he had a really good friend who ran the private equity division of a really crappy "boutique" investment bank. He trusted his friend so much, because he was a subnormal retard. His friend told him that they could get so much money and all they had to do was give a fraction of raw revenue - not like a normal investor who buys a share of a company and gets a share of their profits.
Don't worry though, this company was from AMERICA - it's a magical kingdom where even irrelevant sports can get huge deals to make money.
It didn't happen though, they put their money into an app and there was no additional revenue. Now they owed $13M per year to this company who did nothing for them. But still they wanted more, despite how money they were losing. They put $20M into women's rugby because it was the right thing to do, but never made any money.
What to do?
Eventually they went bankrupt and all the good players were based overseas. Australia should have been a warning sign. The UK Premiership should have been a warning sign, but they were governed by the stupidest people in NZ. The rest were overseas.
Have you mentioned this story previously? Did I miss it? Put's things in an interesting perspective if true. Do you know the friend?
-
Did anyone think Silver Lake deal would increase income of NZ rugby in a year or 2?
I would bet the money was invested (like most biggish investments) to increase income over the long term. You have to wait until most tv deals, tour agreements etc run their course before plugging into new markets. I think you will find that there are enough people involved in NZR not to sign a deal without pretty sound info and basis behind scenes.
To be honest to pretend or hint that it was all Mark Robinson who did deal and that he is some kind of a patsy as @Tim seems to hint is just crazy. But hey it's the Fern (I should remember) and we all know better, and if Gregor Paul says it so well we are all doomed. -
@Nepia Mark Robinson's rugby captain at Cambridge was the head of a division of a "boutique" investment bank, where he was in charge of their private equity finance placement division. So he got paid based upon how big the deal would be.
Moron Mark Robinson tried to sell a lot of NZ Rugby's future for revenue, not profit. Thank god that Rugby Players Association stepped in and stopped that. Their intervention meant that the sale was about 60% of what it was, for about 50% more per revenue share.
Selling anything for a revenue share is fucking retarded. Shame on anyone involved.
