Edinburgh and Glasgow for Sale?

[Chunks Baws]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37493141

Interesting.

[Adder]

SMB live and kicking...

Wouldnt trus SRU with the selling of either Edinburgh or Glasgow.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

[switchskier]

That didn't work out so well last time they tried it. I hope that they've learned something about due diligence since then.

[General Zod]

If they sell one or both, does that mean they will create a Reds team (and immediately annoy the new owners of the other two if they haven't told them that?)

[hp18]

If they sell one or both, does that mean they will create a Reds team (and immediately annoy the new owners of the other two if they haven't told them that?)

Eventually maybe. In the meantime I imagine any extra funds would be split between making the other side more competitive and maybe a funding boost for academies and the like.

[Big D]

The SGM is this week before the Embra v Zebre game. First time I have been to one of those things.

[whatisthejava]

It will pass because it will free up cash for the grass roots game, its the only sensible option moving forward.

Glasgow is probabbly a decent prospect,

[General Zod]

The SGM is this week before the Embra v Zebre game. First time I have been to one of those things.

Ooh - take a notebook and spill all on here, please!

[Stones of granite]

From the SRU website on the topic. Particularly interesting bits highlighted.

External Investment Proposal Q&A
Where is the benefit in this to clubs and domestic rugby?

The Union is better able to focus and fund its most important responsibilities – principally the domestic and international games – and therefore insulates it from the wage inflation being seen in professional rugby. Additional investment into the professional teams from external investors means less competition over resources for the remaining activities and potential for any increased revenues from those remaining activities being retained and applied to those core responsibilities.

Who will own these separate entities?

Initially the Company - Scottish Rugby Union plc - as separate subsidiaries. The scale of that ownership may change over time depending on the success of the external investment programme.It is likely that Scottish Rugby will want to retain a controlling interest throughout, unless an investment proposal was exceptionally attractive. Even then, the Board would still have to be satisfied that the proposal was in the organisation’s best interests and that suitable safeguards for Scottish Rugby’s continuing interests was included within any underlying agreement.

How will they be funded?

Scottish Rugby will still provide funding at or near current levels over a period of time but under a stricter model as a governing body, in return for developing players and importantly, players qualified to play for Scotland, as well as running the two professional teams. The entities will be responsible for generating more income from their own operations, whether through improved trading or external investment.

Will the BT Sport Scottish Rugby Academy be included within this separate entity?

Yes. The BT Sport Scottish Rugby Academy is an integral part of the development of young and aspiring players, progressing in the upper stages to the two professional teams and to the national team. The new entity would manage that for us, using existing facilities, staff and operating arrangements. An investor in professional rugby teams would expect those teams to have a player development pathway available.

The explanation for the motion refers to professional rugby and some elements of performance rugby being within the new entity. Can you explain what is intended by that?

Some elements of the organisation and its staff work almost exclusively for the professional rugby teams and would automatically be part of the new professional rugby structure. However, some of our staff are shared between the professional teams and the high performance national team functions, depending on activity levels at particular times of the year. For effective operational management they may be allocated to either the new set-up or continue to work within the governing body element, depending on the nature and extent of the responsibilities they have. That will be managed through an internal agreement between the new entity and Scottish Rugby as part of the continuing funding arrangements.

Is there a potential return for Scottish Rugby?

Perhaps but that is a long term question and dependent on the success of any external investment programme. It is far too early to say. This is very much about bringing additional external investment into our professional teams, not selling them off.

Do you have anyone in mind as a potential investor?

Not yet – we need to create the underlying structures and obtain the necessary consents first of all so we can approach any potential investor on a straightforward basis, subject always to appropriate Board scrutiny and approvals.

Why was this consent not sought at the AGM in August?

The Chief Executive advised the membership at the AGM that he had been asked by the Board to look at ways of attracting additional investment into Scottish Rugby and has commented publicly on a number of occasions on the topic. This proposal is the outcome of that examination.

Why do we need an SGM now – why not wait until next year’s AGM?

It takes some time to set up the underlying infrastructure but in the meantime the quicker we can approach the market the better - others are faced with similar pressures and there is a potential advantage to being there first.

Will the authority requested in the motion be used to permit the sale of land at BT Murrayfield?

No – the motion is only about consent for external investment into our professional rugby business. It makes clear that the motion cannot be relied upon to provide authority to sell the stadium or land at BT Murrayfield.

[Big D]

The SGM is this week before the Embra v Zebre game. First time I have been to one of those things.

Ooh - take a notebook and spill all on here, please!

I think most of it is already in the public domain like the above Q+A. The biggest issue may be getting enough clubs there to make the vote count one way or another.

[General Zod]

Don't tell me anyone has even seriously been thinking about Murrayfield?

Edit - on reflection, the only way I'd even consider that is if we can buy princes street gardens and turn it into a sort of modern Scottish version of the Circus Maximus with a rugby pitch in the middle.

[Big D]

Don't tell me anyone has even seriously been thinking about Murrayfield?

Edit - on reflection, the only way I'd even consider that is if we can buy princes street gardens and turn it into a sort of modern Scottish version of the Circus Maximus with a rugby pitch in the middle.

No, but I think it was important that they were clear on that to make sure the vote goes in their favour or at least help. No coincidence that Embra are moving.

[Big D]

Unanimously passed. Hot off press.

[Stones of granite]

Unanimously passed. Hot off press.

Awesome!

[Big D]

So standing pitch side and it's a bit dull. So:
Edinburgh currently cost 4.7 or 4.8million to run and Glasgow 5.1M.
French salary cap circa 10M and English estimated 9M by the time marquees and other extras. So we are way behind.

Proposal is to create a "newco" for dealing with pro rugby. Glasgow, Edinburgh and the national academy will sit in this.

SRU plan to retain 51% in each but not wedded to that idea.

There will be strict clauses involved. Such as a minimum number of SQ players (30-32 was mentioned).

The SRU aren't going to market it as an investment where people will make a ROI. They see it as someone /company looking to make a mark on the sport who may invest.

SRU will "ringfence" a sum from next year for the pro sides meaning their investment will be limited to that.

Apparentky inflation in pro rugby is 25%+. And the inflation in player wages is here to stay. The power players and agents hold will not diminish.

Someone asked about a stadium on back pitches. Would cost 17-19million apparently. Dobson had clearly looked at it.

[OptimisticJock]

Anything about a 3rd side if Embra or the weegies et investment?

[General Zod]

Good update.

Was Scott Johnson there?

[Edinburgh in Exile]

Cheers for posting that D. Aye, was going to say, reading that initial statement, it's pretty clear that this really won't attract anyone who isn't doing it primarily for altruistic reasons.

[Big D]

Good update.

Was Scott Johnson there?

No.

[Big D]

Anything about a 3rd side if Embra or the weegies et investment?

Nothing mentioned. Clearly a massive deficit in funds compared to the top english/French sides. It's pretty much double what the 2 sides get.

Interesting, nothing was said about potentially moving say Edinburgh to Aberdeen if the investor wanted that.

[Big D]

Another thing he reiterated was that the debt is down to 4M from 20oddM.

[Cameo]

Another thing he reiterated was that the debt is down to 4M from 20oddM.

That must be a big boost purely in reduced interest payments

[OptimisticJock]

Did they say when they expected to have it paid off?

[Big D]

No, he mentioned it in passing really when mentioning the 17-19M for a stadium on the back pitches. It's more of an AGM thing I guess.

I'm sure the BT deal took a massive chunk off that debt.

[General Zod]

I don't understand how a new stadium could be that much on land they already own.

Even something like Almondvale would be ideal.