rugbyunion
Latest News:
Friday 28 September, KO 19:45 Jersey Red v Yorkshire Carnegie, St Peter's
Send interesting rugby oriented stories to Independent_tykes@hotmail.com
Please make sure you credit your sources when posting information you've read elsewhere and post a link to the original material if found online. Opinions expressed on these message boards and in articles are those of the original authors and do not represent the view of the editors unless explicitly stated.
This site has NO affiliation to
Leeds RUFC Ltd, Leeds Rugby or the Leeds Carnegie Supporters' Association and is run independently of those and all other organisations. Readers and posters are referred to the websites of those organisations for their official views.

TykesRugby.co.uk
The Carnegie Conundrum
TykesRugby.co.uk (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 09:43
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20/03/2018 17:50 by Wildwillie .

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Mark_C (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 14:05
A good post, Leeming, it raises a lot of questions that many of us would like to see answered.

I believe the club was sold to the current board for a nominal sum leaving it debt-free. As to what was sold, that is not clear as you state above.

Currently the club lives a cuckoo-like (I won't use the term parasitic) existence, paying rental for stadium, training ground, and management facilities. I believe that London Irish, Sale, and the remnants of London Welsh still have considerable assets of their own even though they 'ground-shared'.

Questions I would add to yours are:

Does the club own any assets or interests still from the sale of the original Headingley and Roundhay clubs?

Does the club still own any monies from the sale of the 'P' shares, originally 'earmarked for our return to the Premiership'?

To me, the only 'advantage' of investment in the club as it currently stands is that somewhere, there has been a 'nod and a wink' from Premiership Rugby that there will be a place for Yorkshire Carnegie in a restructured Premiership.



Miserati - and Proud to be!

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
almostatyke (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 14:43
Excellent article Leeming, which is effectively a part 2 to the State of the Nation thread.
Assets do not have to be physical things, or even cash: for example an established brand name such as Coke Cola. I am not insinuating that we have a good brand (we have discussed Leeds versus Yorkshire many times before) but we do have:
1) A place in the Championship. Despite criticism of this division it is the next best place to start after the Premiership.
2) One of 14 rfu-licensed regional Academies
3) Shares in the Premiership (but not P-shares) giving us some sort of influence.
4) Existing coaching/conditioning/training facilities, even if this is an agreement to use facilities ultimately owned by Caddick/Rhinos.
5) Loyal supporter base. Some might think of this as a joke, but we have a hard core of about 1800 who regularly attend matches and this number will only grow once investment/hope arrives.

 
oopnorth
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
oopnorth (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 16:49
Whilst Headingley will be a great venue when finished the problem is the rugby union team will be a tenant only. Wuss and Exeter can call on assets and other income streams.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
almostatyke (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 18:07
It's a pity we don't have a fan who is an expert at accountancy, preferably Oxbridge-educated, who could comment on this thread.
Assets? Goodwill?

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Albert Fishwick (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 18:33
There is a distinction between the board and the shareholders. As you say, Dave D managed to assemble a small number of local businessmen (7-8 I think) who were prepared to buy shares in Yorkshire Tykes Ltd and have put in varying amounts in several tranches. Most of these gents are not on the board. I don't think there is any great hang-up over equal shares if someone were to turn up with a wad of cash.

YT Ltd bought Leeds Rugby Union Football Club Ltd from Leeds Rugby Ltd (Caddick) so has full control, but also entered into an agreement to continue to use Headingley, Kirkstall and some back-office facilities.

As regards legacy from Headingley/Roundhay, what was left went into the re-development of West Park.

Companies House records show that a further 750,000 of share capital was invested in the last quarter of 2017 so we don't appear to be dying yet, unless of course that was needed to cover losses or cash flow problems. Things should become a bit clearer when the latest accounts are filed, which should be by the end of this month.



If I had all the money I've spent on drink ..... I'd spend it on drink.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Mark_C (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 19:29
Thanks for your reply, Albert.

Who owns West Park? I'd forgotten about that. I know it's unable to be used as a professional sports stadium, but would the facilities be good enough to support the training of academy/senior players? I know Stuart Lancaster brought England up there once to train.



Miserati - and Proud to be!

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
almostatyke (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 19:50
Thanks Albert!

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
leemingtyke (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 20:00
So, the current board of directors ie Yorkshire Tykes Limited do own the club (Leeds RUFC Ltd).

That has to be good news, even if there are no physical assets, just the ones mentioned by Almo above.

Do we know if they are willing to relinquish control to a suitable backer should one, or a consortium, come forward?

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Albert Fishwick (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 20:04
West Park operates as a community sports club, which is governed by the rules applying to industrial and provident societies. As such, there is a legal entity in place which, I presume owns the land and facilities. I'm not as familiar with this kind of setup and as it costs £12 to get a set of accounts (normal companies accounts are free to obtain these days) I won't be digging further!

I think the planning consent they have probably precludes basing training or academy activities there - they have occasional evening games or student games midweek but I think the locals (including one James Lowes, who lives just along the road) would have something to say if there was regular activity there on weekdays.



If I had all the money I've spent on drink ..... I'd spend it on drink.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Mark_C (IP Logged)
01 March, 2018 22:35
Cheers Albert!



Miserati - and Proud to be!

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Madtyke (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 00:11
As a former member of West Park Bramhope RUFC I along with a lot of others walked away when the Old Farts on the Management Committee decided to ignore the initial approach from Leeds RUFC to groundshare/merge back in the early 90' as they felt WPB were on the up!!!

Leeds RUFC played their games at Kirkstall before it was sold to Morrisons and also had Chandos as a training facility. The decision to become a fully professional club (Leeds Tykes) came about when the Kirkstall grounds were handed over to the developers and Leeds moved in with Leeds Rhinos to form Leeds Rugby the money from the sale of Kirkstall went into the partnership but the amateur club Leeds RUFC continued at Chandos.
Upon the sale of Chandos, Leeds RUFC merged with WPB at the Sycamores and the money from the sale of Chandos was invested in the new Clubhouse and ground development.



[www.arborfieldoldboys.co.uk]

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
leemingtyke (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 08:22
Thanks for that Madtyke. As a relative newcomer i didnt know that stuff.

Im drifting off topic here but from reading your post im thinking that there were two rugby clubs called Leeds. Leeds (who moved in with the Rhinos to become Leeds Tykes, played at Headingley and are called now Yorkshire Carnegie) and Leeds RUFC (who merged with West Park)? Have i understood it right?

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Mark_C (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 08:51
It gets murkier and murkier....



Miserati - and Proud to be!

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Albert Fishwick (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 10:27
Quote:
leemingtyke
Thanks for that Madtyke. As a relative newcomer i didnt know that stuff.
Im drifting off topic here but from reading your post im thinking that there were two rugby clubs called Leeds. Leeds (who moved in with the Rhinos to become Leeds Tykes, played at Headingley and are called now Yorkshire Carnegie) and Leeds RUFC (who merged with West Park)? Have i understood it right?

Pretty much. Headingley and Roundhay merged to form Leeds, which then split into the professional side which went up through the leagues and is now "us", and the rump of the amateur setup which owned, and eventually sold, Chandos Park.



If I had all the money I've spent on drink ..... I'd spend it on drink.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Albert Fishwick (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 10:39
I have had a bit more time to rummage around in Companies House records. At the date of the last annual return (or confirmation statement, as it is called these days), 1 November 2017, the shareholdings were as follows:

David Dockray 71,500
Keith Howard 275,000
Michael Shotton 220,000
Anthony Snowdon 82,500
Jon Wright 110,000
Howard Illingworth 110,000
John Swarbrick 71,500
Mark Smith 110,000
Keith Mutimer 50,000

Some of those names ring a bell. I'm sure more could be found by digging back through this board or press coverage at the time of the Carnegie launch.

At the moment it's not possible to see whether the additional 750,000 shares have been shared among these gents or whether someone new has come in. Normally, any new shares have first to be offered to the existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings, but a resolution was passed before the latest investments to waive this requirement (which is fine) so it may be that one or more of these has pumped in more cash, or that new investors have climbed on.



If I had all the money I've spent on drink ..... I'd spend it on drink.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
almostatyke (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 11:02
Interesting stuff, Albert. I was surprised that Jon Wright (Exercise 4 less) had so few shares as I always thought he was the most benevolent backer. Perhaps he has subsequently purchased the 750,000 shares, I wonder?

 
Bobba
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Bobba (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 12:36
Excellent thread.

When it comes to assets, I believe we have none. The proceeds of Kirkstall and Chandos have been absorbed by Leeds Rugby and West Park. The reported £5m we received and was "ring-fenced" for our return to the Premiership has long gone. A hefty proportion of the moneys received from the RFU whilst we were in the Premiership and later as parachute payments, was returned to our original investor, as repayment of investments and/or loans.

As for attracting new money. Yes, we are supposedly independent of Leeds Rugby, but there is the situation that we have a joint chief executive with the Rhinos, and there could still be a tenuous link with Leeds Rugby, other than, as tenants at Headingley. Given the link and the past record of Leeds Rugby and our assets, as an investor, would you invest?

Investment in any sport is more often than not money down the drain. We ideally need someone who is prepared to put the money into the Club and is also prepared to get away from Headingley by building a new facility, one that could be expanded to accommodate the RFU requirements for Premiership rugby and in effect start afresh.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Albert Fishwick (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 14:37
I don't think anyone who has put money into professional rugby has done so with the expectation of getting their money back, less still making a return.

Gary Hetherington is a director of Leeds Rugby Union but not of Yorkshire Tykes, where the money comes from. While ever we are based at Headingley I think it can only be helpful to have someone representing the landlords on the operational board.

My own view, for what it's worth, is that we are too hard-wired into Headingley now to go anywhere else. If/when the shareholders lose patience then I think we will just fold. The investment needed to start on a new site would be eye-watering, even assuming you could find somewhere in Leeds where the council would be prepared to let you build a new complex. If a different path had been taken when Kirkstall was sold that might have worked, but for me that horse has well and truly bolted.



If I had all the money I've spent on drink ..... I'd spend it on drink.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
almostatyke (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 17:01
Quote:
Albert Fishwick
My own view, for what it's worth, is that we are too hard-wired into Headingley now to go anywhere else. If/when the shareholders lose patience then I think we will just fold. The investment needed to start on a new site would be eye-watering, even assuming you could find somewhere in Leeds where the council would be prepared to let you build a new complex.

Couldn't agree more Albert. If you look at the (currently stalled) S4C i.e. Pirates proposed new stadium, for a 6000 capacity stadium that could be subsequently extended to 15,000, the cost of the first phase is £14 million.
Assuming we could magic up £14 million for a similar stadium in Yorkshire , the running costs would almost certainly be a further drain on resources plus another £10 million or so would be required if we achieved promotion to meet Premiership standards.
I wish Pirates success in their project, which will have a community value unlikely to be realised in Yorkshire, but for us to go down that route would be folly imho.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Mark_C (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 19:31
Pirates stadium cost is 'ground up'. You could buy an existing base in 'Yorkshire' for less than that, and develop it.



Miserati - and Proud to be!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2018 19:35 by Mark_C.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
leemingtyke (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 19:37
Quote:
Bobba
The reported £5m we received and was "ring-fenced" for our return to the Premiership has long gone. A hefty proportion of the moneys received from the RFU whilst we were in the Premiership and later as parachute payments, was returned to our original investor, as repayment of investments and/or loans.

I thought it was the (supposedly) ringfenced P Shares money that was used to pay back Mr Caddick?

What happened to the parachute payments is anyones guess!

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Mark_C (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 19:50
When the money ran out at Orrell, Richmond, and LW their demise was swift, but in Richmond's case it gave them the chance to regroup. 'Yorkshire' have been suffering a lingering demise since Caddick pulled the plug - as things stand now they will only be an attractive investment as a plaything, indulgence, or 'tax-loss'.

As you say Albert, hindsight is a remarkable gift.



Miserati - and Proud to be!

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
leemingtyke (IP Logged)
02 March, 2018 20:39
After reading Alberts post above, a quick bit of Googling reveals that:

David Dockray runs a consultancy business.

Keith Howard is the founder and Chairman of Emerald Group.

Michael Shotton is Chairman of Huddersfield company Global Engineers Ltd.

Anthony Snowdon is a marketing expert and former director of FTL Technology

Jon Wright, as Almo says, is the founder and Chief Exec of Exercise for Less.

Howard Illingworth is a director at Robinson Group and Northern Energy.

John Swarbrick is a former corporate finance advisor who is Head of Portfolio at the Business Growth Fund.

Keith Mutimer is a director of Bridge Court Harewood, a property management company.

Mark Smith I cant find much about, common name I think.

A lot of this was taken from this YEP story from December 2014

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
Zandra YaPoI (IP Logged)
03 March, 2018 09:36
Excellent thread guys, very informative and an excellent read.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
JDH (IP Logged)
03 March, 2018 10:15
I stumbled on this thread late. Taken me ages to read... good posts though guys.

 
John R
Re: The Carnegie Conundrum
John R (IP Logged)
03 March, 2018 11:35
Thank you all for the information contained in this thread.
It makes fascinating reading and I am sure many readers are now much enlightened by all of this.

So that's the background, now we look for improvement going forward..........please gentlemen.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?