|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Jan 9, 2024 8:52:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by baldeagle on Jan 9, 2024 9:42:45 GMT
Should last a few months….. |
|
|
|
Post by LTfan on Jan 9, 2024 15:48:20 GMT
I understand 777 loaning millions (almost $200M to date) to Everton whilst they continue to peruse their acquisition, but how do you loan £4M to something you're already (part)owner of? So they've loaned the BBL £4M with the expectation it'll be repaid... isn't that just another way of saying they've invested another £4M? |
|
|
|
Post by birdorbyrd on Jan 9, 2024 15:56:59 GMT
Some misconceptions here need correcting. There is a finite pool of cash set aside for the EFC acquisition (still awaiting approval after 3 months…) and it comes from insurance company backers. It is not 777’s , and is capped at a certain amount. Their attempts to raise further outside capital have failed. All other access to capital is through the other assets owned by the company. Are these in good shape? Well, all of the companies with accounts in the public domain are losing money. And a credit ratings downgrade and forced divestment puts a big question mark over both the value of 777’s held assets and their ability to raise capital for 777.
As to the Post story. You can read that as buyer’s remorse if you like. But the facts are the mother went to court alleging her daughter was coerced into signing those agreements - and that case has been allowed to proceed by a judge.
|
|
|
|
Post by milehigh on Jan 9, 2024 16:19:16 GMT
Don't forget 777, and subsidaries, trying to exploit the injured and brain damaged ex nfl players, or that Mr Wander is a convicted drug dealer.
Not really ethical people to be involved in a sport trying to maeket iutself to young people.
|
|
|
|
Post by dexter on Jan 9, 2024 16:45:04 GMT
I understand 777 loaning millions (almost $200M to date) to Everton whilst they continue to peruse their acquisition, but how do you loan £4M to something you're already (part)owner of? So they've loaned the BBL £4M with the expectation it'll be repaid... isn't that just another way of saying they've invested another £4M? I've just paid off my wife's credit card debt, again. I guess by your logic that's an investment. |
|
|
|
Post by milehigh on Jan 9, 2024 16:48:42 GMT
Hope you get a good, regular, ROI :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Jan 9, 2024 16:48:42 GMT
I understand 777 loaning millions (almost $200M to date) to Everton whilst they continue to peruse their acquisition, but how do you loan £4M to something you're already (part)owner of? So they've loaned the BBL £4M with the expectation it'll be repaid... isn't that just another way of saying they've invested another £4M? In a word, no. 777 are the majority shareholders yes, but its a completely separate legal entity to the BBL. They've not spent money as directors, they've arranged a secured loan (debt) of 4m against the BBL. If they wanted that back tomorrow for example, the league would have to stump up or go into administration. Whilst that's in nobody's interest (as 777 simply wouldn't get the money back), when do we think the BBL will be able to afford it? It's also a common theme with 777, and they're up to their necks in it across their portfolio. You'd be mental to ignore the signs. |
|
|
|
Post by LTfan on Jan 9, 2024 18:08:16 GMT
I understand 777 loaning millions (almost $200M to date) to Everton whilst they continue to peruse their acquisition, but how do you loan £4M to something you're already (part)owner of? So they've loaned the BBL £4M with the expectation it'll be repaid... isn't that just another way of saying they've invested another £4M? I've just paid off my wife's credit card debt, again. I guess by your logic that's an investment. Only if you think you’re getting that money, or more, back!  |
|
|
|
Post by LTfan on Jan 9, 2024 18:16:05 GMT
I understand 777 loaning millions (almost $200M to date) to Everton whilst they continue to peruse their acquisition, but how do you loan £4M to something you're already (part)owner of? So they've loaned the BBL £4M with the expectation it'll be repaid... isn't that just another way of saying they've invested another £4M? In a word, no. 777 are the majority shareholders yes, but its a completely separate legal entity to the BBL. They've not spent money as directors, they've arranged a secured loan (debt) of 4m against the BBL. If they wanted that back tomorrow for example, the league would have to stump up or go into administration. Whilst that's in nobody's interest (as 777 simply wouldn't get the money back), when do we think the BBL will be able to afford it? It's also a common theme with 777, and they're up to their necks in it across their portfolio. You'd be mental to ignore the signs. What I find confusing is that if 777 demanded the loan back tomorrow you’re quite right in saying it would likely force the league into administration… the league they’re majority shareholders in! So they’d not only not get their loan back, they’d tank their investment too. So in that respect whilst the £4M might be a loan it’s actually not that different to further investment (in quite possibly efforts to save their sinking ship). |
|
|
|
Post by dexter on Jan 9, 2024 18:25:50 GMT
I've just paid off my wife's credit card debt, again. I guess by your logic that's an investment. Only if you think you’re getting that money, or more, back! 😂 There's absolutely no way. |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Jan 9, 2024 21:03:58 GMT
In a word, no. 777 are the majority shareholders yes, but its a completely separate legal entity to the BBL. They've not spent money as directors, they've arranged a secured loan (debt) of 4m against the BBL. If they wanted that back tomorrow for example, the league would have to stump up or go into administration. Whilst that's in nobody's interest (as 777 simply wouldn't get the money back), when do we think the BBL will be able to afford it? It's also a common theme with 777, and they're up to their necks in it across their portfolio. You'd be mental to ignore the signs. What I find confusing is that if 777 demanded the loan back tomorrow you’re quite right in saying it would likely force the league into administration… the league they’re majority shareholders in! So they’d not only not get their loan back, they’d tank their investment too. So in that respect whilst the £4M might be a loan it’s actually not that different to further investment (in quite possibly efforts to save their sinking ship). They've done it to tide the league over whilst chancing their arms that they'll get outside sponsors and investment that'll be able to pay them their loan back. And they'll be able to enforce it as secured creditors as opposed to just investment monies in good faith. It's a hail Mary at this stage, and let's face it if the league wasn't days from administration why the need for a loan? The end could well be nigh. Its not a stretch for me to suggest the summer could be cut off point if they don't get the attention they're craving from all these obscure American tv deals. Why else are they broadcasting to the states? Its not for the pulsating standard let's face it. |
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jan 9, 2024 21:10:44 GMT
I've been reading this thread with interest but as I've already made my feelings on 777 clear I didn't have anything to add.
I do find the money laundering aspects both worrying and intriguing. Intriguing as it provides an explanation for the meteoric rise of this company in just a few years. Worrying as the implications for all businesses under their control are not good.
Oh and the last time I checked the US is NOT part of the UK. They made that very clear nearly 250 years ago. What part of "British" don't they get?
|
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jan 9, 2024 21:19:27 GMT
Genuine question (and a follow up). Why does the BBL suddenly need millions per year to run? How was it funded in the past? Was it just the revenue off the cup finals?
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Jan 9, 2024 21:23:22 GMT
Genuine question (and a follow up). Why does the BBL suddenly need millions per year to run? How was it funded in the past? Was it just the revenue off the cup finals? They never used to have 40 paid staff, increased production costs, and I'm speculating here but I'm guessing they're not getting paid for these random US TV deals. In fact I'm thinking it's potentially quite the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by dexter on Jan 9, 2024 23:31:28 GMT
I am not a defender of 777 Partners and I don't think their strategy will ever make any money, but I do see the sense in trying to broadcast in America. Their population is X5 ours but their sports TV market seems to be even bigger.
For comparison, average viewership for WNBA regular season games last season was 505k. This is attacked by critics of the WNBA who say this figure is low. Meanwhile in the UK, Premiership rugby is boasting viewership figures of an average of 259k which they seem to be really pleased with. BBL isn't going to get close to Premiership rugby viewing numbers in England. It's probably still below netball. But how much viewership could it get in America? I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if it could get more American viewers than British viewers, just because there are far more Americans who would happily sit down and watch basketball.
|
|
|
|
Post by LTfan on Jan 10, 2024 10:10:49 GMT
Genuine question (and a follow up). Why does the BBL suddenly need millions per year to run? How was it funded in the past? Was it just the revenue off the cup finals? Basically, yes. And some minor sponsorship deals plus money from the franchises (teams). But the biggest difference is that it's running costs were a fraction of what they currently are, and even then things weren't always balancing financially. Saying this latest £4M 'loan' is a 'hail mary' isn't necessarily wrong, but this whole experiment has been a throw of the dice since the very beginning and the initial £7M investment. 777 knew the risk they were taking. The BBL knew the risk they were taking - although I suspect they took the risk more through fear of the alternative than anything else. Let's try and stay positive, this might all still work out with some degree of success. On the outside the BBL is probably in the best shape it has ever been in, and some of that might be salvageable even if this risk doesn't pay off in the way 777 and the BBL had hoped. |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Jan 10, 2024 22:17:40 GMT
In todays merry go round, it transpires 777 are being dragged through the high court for non payment for Flair 737 small airplanes. To the tune of 28 mill.
|
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jan 10, 2024 22:27:56 GMT
Thank you for the replies. So it seems we've reverted to building on sand. History has taught us, this doesn't work. I'm usually a glass half full guy but the positives in this case are few and far between.
If (as I read somewhere) the loan was forced on the league by majority owners 777 Partners they're setting the league up to fail. They're the strangest investors I think I've ever come across.
Edit, I forgot to add the days of Dairylea or Budweiser putting millions into the league are long gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jan 10, 2024 22:31:51 GMT
In todays merry go round, it transpires 777 are being dragged through the high court for non payment for Flair 737 small airplanes. To the tune of 28 mill. Are you going to tell the Premier League or shall I?😂 |
|
