This is something that has been mulling over in my mind for a while now, and I'm sure its come up in passing more than once- who actually owns the Sharks?
As I understand it, there are two legal entities:
- The Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd., which is a company limited by guarantee.
- The Cronulla-Sutherland Leagues Club Ltd and Controlled Entities (thanks to fitz and BUZ and this thread here)
A few things in particular have got me thinking about this of late- specifically the cash-flow/debt servicing issues the Leagues Club faces, the Tradies merger proposal and Nathan Tinkler's takeover of the Knights.
Below is a summarised breakdown of the ownership structure of each of the 16 NRL clubs as they stood in 2009, according to a generally unreliable source but one that I think was about right at the time and another one here.
Also, if you're like me and need some background on what the difference is between a 'public company limited by shares' and 'public company limited by guratantee' is etc, a couple of good places to have a look are the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and this straightforward blog here.
One more thing- where I have 'Membership' below, I mean voting membership, rather than season tickets or the like.
Now, it seems to me that the Club has made great strides forward in securing our future on a long term basis with the development, and has made some changes to keep us afloat short term, but we are still looking to shore up our prospects over the medium run- the next 12-36 months- especially in terms of cash flow and servicing the debt.**
Of course another thing to happen recently was the Green Bay Packers winning the Superbowl over in the US. If you don't know much about the Packers, they are a unique outfit in American sport- here are some facts:
- Unlike every other sports franchise in the USA, they are publicly owned (by 112,158 shareholders who between them hold about 4.7 million Green Bay Packers stocks)
- Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are never paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value (though private sales often exceed the face value of the stock), and stock ownership brings no season ticket privileges.
-No shareholder may own over 200,000 shares, a safeguard to ensure that no individual can assume control of the club. To run the corporation, a board of directors is elected by the stockholders.
- As written in to the original, 1923 guidelines, were the corporation to be sold then the proceeds would go to building a 'proper soldier's memorial'- so there is not incentive for anyone to try and windup the team
- They hail from Green Bay Wisconsin, a town of about 90 000 people, and sell out their 100 000 seat home ground in Green Bay every single week. (And that's not counting the thousands who sit outside the stadium tailgating, unable to get in)
- Over their history, they have had four separate floats of shares which have saved them during dire financial times and, most recently in 1997-98, funded the redevelopment of the area around their home ground, Lambeau Field.
- As with our club but unlike other American franchises who are owned by tycoons and are run to make a profit, Green Bay are run with the intent to a) stay solvent and b) field a consistently competitive and successful side.
- They have won 13 League Championships- more than any other team
Source
Also, a really good recent article on the Packers and their history and ideals is here.
In northern Australia, Rugby League has always been the working man's game- honest and unpretentious. Its not made for 'franchises' that can be bought and sold and shifted on a whim like soccer, NFL, Super Rugby or- heaven forbid- Twenty20 Cricket. Its about local players, local fans, tribalism and, most of all, Clubs. Local ownership. And one of the things that I love about our Club is the fact that it reflects that unpretentious identity.
So my question is this- could we put in place an ownership structure similar to that of Green Bay as a way of alleviating our cash flow issues in the short to medium term?
Also, does anyone know if this has this ever been formally considered by the Club, perhaps in the dim, dark past?
Would you buy shares in your Club even though you would not receive any tangible (financial) benefits?
There are obvious issues. At the moment, the Leagues Club holds all the debt, not the football Club, and I'm not clear on how they are legally linked. What, if any, ownership structure would be workable, and whether it would subsequently be possible to prevent shareholders from being personally liable for the Club's debts. Whether there would be enough people, and enough wealthy people to stump up coin to make it worthwhile is obviously also an issue.
However, there is some precedent- the NQ Fury raised more than $1.5m using a similar method in a (failed) recent attempt to keep the club alive, the Ipswich Jets NRL bid have indicated that such a model will be how they progress, and obviously the Dragons and Tigers are structured in a way not far from what I am tentatively envisaging.
Forgive for the length of the post- and congratulations if you've made it this far! I do feel that this is an important issue for us to explore and I want all of the many sharp minds that make this Forum such a great place to have access to some decent information on the issue. And forgive me thrice if you think I've wasted your time and am barking up completely the wrong tree!
:cheers
**Please don't take that summary as gospel- it is purely my bastardised understanding, and I'm more than happy to be corrected.
As I understand it, there are two legal entities:
- The Cronulla-Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd., which is a company limited by guarantee.
- The Cronulla-Sutherland Leagues Club Ltd and Controlled Entities (thanks to fitz and BUZ and this thread here)
A few things in particular have got me thinking about this of late- specifically the cash-flow/debt servicing issues the Leagues Club faces, the Tradies merger proposal and Nathan Tinkler's takeover of the Knights.
Below is a summarised breakdown of the ownership structure of each of the 16 NRL clubs as they stood in 2009, according to a generally unreliable source but one that I think was about right at the time and another one here.
Also, if you're like me and need some background on what the difference is between a 'public company limited by shares' and 'public company limited by guratantee' is etc, a couple of good places to have a look are the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and this straightforward blog here.
One more thing- where I have 'Membership' below, I mean voting membership, rather than season tickets or the like.
Now, it seems to me that the Club has made great strides forward in securing our future on a long term basis with the development, and has made some changes to keep us afloat short term, but we are still looking to shore up our prospects over the medium run- the next 12-36 months- especially in terms of cash flow and servicing the debt.**
Of course another thing to happen recently was the Green Bay Packers winning the Superbowl over in the US. If you don't know much about the Packers, they are a unique outfit in American sport- here are some facts:
- Unlike every other sports franchise in the USA, they are publicly owned (by 112,158 shareholders who between them hold about 4.7 million Green Bay Packers stocks)
- Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are never paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value (though private sales often exceed the face value of the stock), and stock ownership brings no season ticket privileges.
-No shareholder may own over 200,000 shares, a safeguard to ensure that no individual can assume control of the club. To run the corporation, a board of directors is elected by the stockholders.
- As written in to the original, 1923 guidelines, were the corporation to be sold then the proceeds would go to building a 'proper soldier's memorial'- so there is not incentive for anyone to try and windup the team
- They hail from Green Bay Wisconsin, a town of about 90 000 people, and sell out their 100 000 seat home ground in Green Bay every single week. (And that's not counting the thousands who sit outside the stadium tailgating, unable to get in)
- Over their history, they have had four separate floats of shares which have saved them during dire financial times and, most recently in 1997-98, funded the redevelopment of the area around their home ground, Lambeau Field.
- As with our club but unlike other American franchises who are owned by tycoons and are run to make a profit, Green Bay are run with the intent to a) stay solvent and b) field a consistently competitive and successful side.
- They have won 13 League Championships- more than any other team
Source
Also, a really good recent article on the Packers and their history and ideals is here.
In northern Australia, Rugby League has always been the working man's game- honest and unpretentious. Its not made for 'franchises' that can be bought and sold and shifted on a whim like soccer, NFL, Super Rugby or- heaven forbid- Twenty20 Cricket. Its about local players, local fans, tribalism and, most of all, Clubs. Local ownership. And one of the things that I love about our Club is the fact that it reflects that unpretentious identity.
So my question is this- could we put in place an ownership structure similar to that of Green Bay as a way of alleviating our cash flow issues in the short to medium term?
Also, does anyone know if this has this ever been formally considered by the Club, perhaps in the dim, dark past?
Would you buy shares in your Club even though you would not receive any tangible (financial) benefits?
There are obvious issues. At the moment, the Leagues Club holds all the debt, not the football Club, and I'm not clear on how they are legally linked. What, if any, ownership structure would be workable, and whether it would subsequently be possible to prevent shareholders from being personally liable for the Club's debts. Whether there would be enough people, and enough wealthy people to stump up coin to make it worthwhile is obviously also an issue.
However, there is some precedent- the NQ Fury raised more than $1.5m using a similar method in a (failed) recent attempt to keep the club alive, the Ipswich Jets NRL bid have indicated that such a model will be how they progress, and obviously the Dragons and Tigers are structured in a way not far from what I am tentatively envisaging.
Forgive for the length of the post- and congratulations if you've made it this far! I do feel that this is an important issue for us to explore and I want all of the many sharp minds that make this Forum such a great place to have access to some decent information on the issue. And forgive me thrice if you think I've wasted your time and am barking up completely the wrong tree!
:cheers
**Please don't take that summary as gospel- it is purely my bastardised understanding, and I'm more than happy to be corrected.
