[WeWood]

#1350727

What do the Australian NSers think about this..

[Ian Harkin]

#1350732

Australia’s Diamonds secure rich deal with Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting

Australia’s Diamonds secure rich deal with Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting

[Nate]

#1350739

So if all that sponsor money is going straight into the Diamonds high performance, that then doesnt help at all towards paying off the millions NA still owe? Right?

And it also doesnt help with the debts concerning SSN? Right?

Or anything towards grass roots? Right?

:unsure:

[Tully]

#1350743

You would need to look at the financials to work that out. Is the SSN a reportable entity in its own right? Or part of NA? I don’t know the answer but if it’s the latter then of course it helps.

Do we know the details of the debt? I previously read the debt was being extended. Depending on a number of factors debt amortisation may be a condition of any extension or it may not be (voluntary amortisation being another factor). If they were extended then a lot will depend on the term and conditions.

[Tully]

#1350744

I for one am happy to see that NA did not revert straight to the PE offer and have instead pursued alternative liquidity options.

I obviously do not know the intricate details of either the PE transaction or the sponsorship however, it was clear there was a lot of naivety in the netball community regarding the PE offer especially from the playing group. PE firms as a general rule do not make acquisitions for long term management and ownership. It was a buy out offer. How long were they to own and manage the competition before selling at a profit and moving on? The long term ownership and management of SSN was completely unknown.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by Tully.

[Nate]

#1350747

Wasnt the PE bid for SSN (which NA owns and operates) only, which is nothing to do with NA pathways or the Diamonds set up?

So the way i read it, yes the new sponsership will help alleviate some of the debt from NA operations involving the Diamonds set up but not all entirely as that debt has also come from SSN running at a loss the last couple years.

[Tully]

#1350751

Yes, I understood the PE offer was to buy SSN. Who is the borrower of the debt? If it’s NA then whilst the sponsorship is of the Diamonds that allows cash that would otherwise be diverted to Diamonds to be used for other operations therefore providing liquidity to NA and serviceability for their loans.

[mcleod]

#1350752

NA need to let go of the SSN, its costs are spillireng out of control. Magpies and giants still after 6 years get poor crowds. And get rid of the stupid time outs

[Ian Harkin]

#1351284

Diamonds in urgent talks ahead of second Test after players protest over sponsor

https://www.foxsports.com.au/netball/netball-australia-constellation-cup-vs-new-zealand-news-players-in-crisis-talks-after-player-protest-over-sponsor-hancock-prospecting/news-story/e32d1eef09930d8637a94662583d642b

[Nate]

#1351285

Interesting read indeed.

Would be interesting to see how much NA does spend on the whole Diamonds set up annually.

So if the 3.4mill sponsership a year would cover their costs, then NA can pump whatever money they dont need to pay the Diamonds set up into their admin and SSN debts? Im not great with understanding the ins and outs of running that sort of thing, if someone with better knowledge let me know…. :scratch:

[Netballcrazy1]

#1351288

It’s not the best sponsor but I think netball doesn’t really have the liberty of being this picky. It’s a good deal by the sounds of it and one we are in desperate need of in the short-term.

[Ian Harkin]

#1351289

I mean, it was good enough for Olympians, swimmers, volleyballers, rowers etc. I can understand the players’ feelings but it’s a good deal that I don’t think netball is in a great position to pass up.

[schmeetle]

#1351291

I saw Sharni’s (and others) indignant tweets when the sponsorship was first announced. Yes, tweeting their indignation via phones and other devices made entirely of products produced from mining. And then, after driving to a television studio bleating the same. I thought, just let this go through to the keeper…

Sharni, and the offended netball players, if you don’t wish to make your living jetting about the place and having your face plastered across multiple media, wearing shoes and training gear manufactured by modern infrastructure, feel free to do something else.

PS I don’t recall any issues with the Fever being sponsored by Roy Hill and the Gold Industry Group.

[Kwkiwi]

#1351294

That’s an interesting article. As a New Zealander I wasn’t aware of the issues around this sponsorship deal. It’s basically a bail out package for an organisation in deep financial trouble. If the players reject that sponsor then it would have to be the government that ultimately props up the sport. That’s definitely what would happen in NZ. There are all sorts of implications for the future of the sport, player salaries etc if they reject this deal.

[Kwkiwi]

#1351295

Can’t see Sharni getting anymore commentating gigs any time soon. Maybe she’s thinking of entering politics??
How daft is that, biting the hand that feeds you? Would like to know who the ringmaster is behind this.

[Author]

Posts