65% of Supercar On The Market for $100m - CONFIRMED & STALLED

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by T-star

Cmon GTR.
Selling for less than they bought for says that they either overpaid or that it is worth less now.

No amount of powder covers that up.

Not really T-Star, consider this they already would've been very close to breaking even thanks to the Foxtel agreement and as well from REC fees, category sponsorship, money payed from tracks etc accumulated over the years. So they're likely in profit and they're a private equity firm, Private equity firms have a tendency to not hold onto investments for the long term. It's not an ominous sign of demise, Supercars is part of a portfolio of their investments their selling currently

[Backagain]

"The sport’s cumulative TV audience has grown by 43 per cent over the last three years with more than 65 million viewers in 2016."

Interesting spin.

I wonder if from a prospective sponsors point of view, has anyone done a comparison of the number of viewers x no. of hours watched prior to the Foxtel takeover versus the number of viewers x 1 hour highlights after.

One hour "highlights" mean a hell of a lot less sponsor exposure to the majority of the audience.

[one five five]

Does the 65% sale include everything (ie... is Supercars Media and Supercars Events under this umbrella?)

Originally Posted by peckstar

Before 7. think it was the contract with ten before that one

If we are talking about when Supercars started producing their own TV production and supplying it to broadcasters, that was with the Channel 7 deal for 2007 (and only because the idea was pitched to them by Ch7 who didn't have the resources to do it themselves like Ten was doing, and 7 did before that). Channel Ten did it themselves until the end of 2006

Originally Posted by LD2244

Not really T-Star, consider this they already would've been very close to breaking even thanks to the Foxtel agreement and as well from REC fees, category sponsorship, money payed from tracks etc accumulated over the years. So they're likely in profit and they're a private equity firm, Private equity firms have a tendency to not hold onto investments for the long term. It's not an ominous sign of demise, Supercars is part of a portfolio of their investments their selling currently

Sounds like you are buying their BS hook line and sinker

How anyone can spin a supposed $80 million loss as something positive is amazing, but not really surprising given the barrows that get pushed around this forum so often.

Even if it's a part of a portfolio where other things cover the loss and it turns out to be a profit, the fact is that the Supercars element let that part of the portfolio down.

I don't see how anyone can claim the series is in a better state now than where it was in 2011 when Archer bought in.

My tip is SEL to get it back, it is their baby and will probably pay overs (compared to the other bids) to get it back. James Erskine seems pretty keen in an article posted today

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by one five five

Does the 65% sale include everything (ie... is Supercars Media and Supercars Events under this umbrella?)




If we are talking about when Supercars started producing their own TV production and supplying it to broadcasters, that was with the Channel 7 deal for 2007 (and only because the idea was pitched to them by Ch7 who didn't have the resources to do it themselves like Ten was doing, and 7 did before that). Channel Ten did it themselves until the end of 2006



Sounds like you are buying their BS hook line and sinker

How anyone can spin a supposed $80 million loss as something positive is amazing, but not really surprising given the barrows that get pushed around this forum so often.

Even if it's a part of a portfolio where other things cover the loss and it turns out to be a profit, the fact is that the Supercars element let that part of the portfolio down.

I don't see how anyone can claim the series is in a better state now than where it was in 2011 when Archer bought in.

My tip is SEL to get it back, it is their baby and will probably pay overs (compared to the other bids) to get it back. James Erskine seems pretty keen in an article posted today

Considering the Foxtel deal is a $260,000,000 valuement and Archer have 65% ownership that's $190,000,000 alone. Also I'm not "buying" their conclusion at all, I made my own based of my own research (which I've been doing since the rumour first popped up) not on some guy in a suit telling me it. I believe that Archer Capital did well with the category but it is need of change and SEL coming in is exactly what the category needs, the total bidding price isn't fully reflective of what profits Archer made off of Supercars.

[blaarg]

Originally Posted by LD2244

Considering the Foxtel deal is a $260,000,000 valuement and Archer have 65% ownership that's $190,000,000 alone. Also I'm not "buying" their conclusion at all, I made my own based of my own research (which I've been doing since the rumour first popped up) not on some guy in a suit telling me it. I believe that Archer Capital did well with the category but it is need of change and SEL coming in is exactly what the category needs, the total bidding price isn't fully reflective of what profits Archer made off of Supercars.

IF Warburtons suggestion is correct that Supercars profits are approximately $30m per year (since the foxtel deal), then an assumed dividend would be 65% of this, or $18m per year return to Archer, assuming dividends were paid in full to shareholders.

Who knows what the dividend was prior to the foxtel deal, that said $80m is still a long way off the $180m paid for the 65% share back in 2011.

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by blaarg

IF Warburtons suggestion is correct that Supercars profits are approximately $30m per year (since the foxtel deal), then an assumed dividend would be 65% of this, or $18m per year return to Archer, assuming dividends were paid in full to shareholders.

Who knows what the dividend was prior to the foxtel deal, that said $80m is still a long way off the $180m paid for the 65% share back in 2011.

I know we can only predict at this point but Id say they well and truely broke even in my opinion

[T-star]

LD2244 you need to separate revenue from profit.

They are selling at a loss and that can not be disputed.


I love Supercars also, but sometimes you need to open your eyes and accept the whole circus isn't perfect.

[GTRMagic]

Back on planet earth...



Interesting that the teams may be able to sell out their stake into the new ownership

Perhaps that's why one team in particular is still hanging on, as a larger financial play

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by T-star

LD2244 you need to separate revenue from profit.

They are selling at a loss and that can not be disputed.


I love Supercars also, but sometimes you need to open your eyes and accept the whole circus isn't perfect.

I know there's a different between them and that everything isn't perfect such as lack of manufacturer involvement for example but I just can't see how they would've run a loss on this investment. The article above seems to emphasise that

[one five five]

Originally Posted by LD2244

but I just can't see how they would've run a loss on this investment. The article above seems to emphasise that

All the article shows is that the "Fourth Fund" that Supercars is a part of made money (1.5 times). It does not emphasise in any way that Supercars itself made money

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by one five five

All the article shows is that the "Fourth Fund" that Supercars is a part of made money (1.5 times). It does not emphasise in any way that Supercars itself made money

Emphasise was for lack of a better word for it to generate that profit form fund deposit I find it hard to believe it could've run at a loss. As I've said that's unknown, until further evidence is broght forth I have minimal reason to believe that their investment ran at a loss let's just for now agree to disagree

[T-star]

Bought at a higher price than sold = LOSS

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by T-star

Bought at a higher price than sold = LOSS

Not really, for it to be classified as a loss depends on the profit return they received during their period of ownership not just their selling range

[T-star]

Your mates GTR and Peckster are both money talking people. Maybe they can explain it to you.

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by T-star

Your mates GTR and Peckster are both money talking people. Maybe they can explain it to you.

I don't need any "explaining" to me lol I get they're selling it for a lesser price that's true but Im saying that I don't believe they made an overall financial loss on their investment

[one five five]

Given the fact that series is plainly not in as strong a place in 2017 as it was in 2011, is the lower selling price really a surprise?

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by one five five

Given the fact that series is plainly not in as strong a place in 2017 as it was in 2011, is the lower selling price really a surprise?

Considering the profit Supercars turned over last year wouldn't necessarily say that it's fact. I think to an extent your right in some ways it was but in some ways it wasn't. However if you want to believe contrary about this that's fine I respect your right to an opinion.

[StueyB83]

Originally Posted by LD2244

I don't need any "explaining" to me lol I get they're selling it for a lesser price that's true but Im saying that I don't believe they made an overall financial loss on their investment

So what you're saying is; The next buyer gets $160m worth of value for the low, low price of $100m?

Do they throw in a free set of steak knives?

Now I'm no bean counter - I wouldn't know the value of Brown Coal in Uzbekistan if a tonne of it landed on my house - but generally if something makes money year on year - it becomes more valuable when its time to sell it.

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by StueyB83

So what your saying is; The next buyer gets a $160m product for the low, low price of $100m?

Do they throw in a free set of steak knives?

hahaha good one but the selling price as I said isnt determining of how much money overall they've made off of Supercars since 2011.

[mayhem]

Originally Posted by LD2244

Not really, for it to be classified as a loss depends on the profit return they received during their period of ownership not just their selling range

Dear Lord.

[Umai Naa]

I wonder if a new buyer will take the assets, ditch what we know, and come up with a show that's more appealing to the bean-counters and marketing boffins that have previously shrugged off or shunned involvement in the series?

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by mayhem

Dear Lord.

The overall selling price (which is low) isn't an overall indicator of how much return they've received during their period of ownership. They could've have already broken even but as I said that's just in my opinion

[T-star]

Your opinion is wrong

[PS2244]

Originally Posted by T-star

Your opinion is wrong

For the umpteenth time as I said I know that the asking price is below their purchasing price but I just don't believe after selling they will have made an overall loss. Also this is just their reserve price it could exceed that who knows until the final bid is signed that's the only period of when I'll be proven wrong and I'll admit that if that route materialises

[StueyB83]

Originally Posted by LD2244

The overall selling price (which is low) isn't an overall indicator of how much return they've received during their period of ownership. They could've have already broken even but as I said that's just in my opinion

Well, I doubt it, because you'd think as a Venture Capital group that they'd have sold it much earlier if they made so much cream, which is now being eroded away.

All the articles tell to the most punters is that VASC's change in commercial value appears to be toxic enough to warrant a $60m write off of its purchase price from 6 years ago.