Deal or No Deal (Alex V B-dos )

[cram]

Challenging debate?, it may have been that at some point but that all went out the window some time ago. What it has become is two people at opposite ends of the spectrum who are not willing to concede an inch, some might say thats not a debate but rather "stubborness".... :shock: :lol:

 

[RABK]

This is the argument that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends
Some people starting contributing not knowing what it was
And they`ll continue contributing to it forever just because...

repeat x infinite

 

[B-dos]

Challenging debate?, it may have been that at some point but that all went out the window some time ago. What it has become is two people at opposite ends of the spectrum who are not willing to concede an inch, some might say thats not a debate but rather "stubborness".... :shock: :lol:

well it certainly amuses me that so many here feel compelled to comment on a discussion they are not involved in or have any intention of being involved in

 

[cram]

well it certainly amuses me that so many here feel compelled to comment on a discussion they are not involved in or have any intention of being involved in

Yes, as a professional "shit stirrer" I imagine that it does amuse you, and in case you did not realise it I think its an open forum, not sure at any point that any of those "compelled to comment" realsied that it was your own personal domain.

 

[Alex28]

i'm a little curious why HSG were able to install their guy as the interim CEO before the sale had actually occured. can someone a little more knowledgable on corporate takeovers specify whether this is the norm? was this only as a result of Burro falling on his sword, perhaps prematurely? i really don't know, and this isn't an invitation for you to be a wanker, Alex.

I have never ever seen a case where the purchaser has been able to go in and operate a business before actually purchasing the business. Ever. I have never seen a case where the purchaser has been able to make fundemental changes to the day-to-day operations of the business before they have paid a cent for the right to do so.

It is a ridiculous situation. At best there should have been an independent administrator come in between the vote date and the settlement.

 

[RABK]

I have never ever seen a case where the purchaser has been able to go in and operate a business before actually purchasing the business. Ever. I have never seen a case where the purchaser has been able to make fundemental changes to the day-to-day operations of the business before they have paid a cent for the right to do so.

It is a ridiculous situation. At best there should have been an independent administrator come in between the vote date and the settlement.

As a former St George employee i can tell you westpac had significant influence before the official purchase and handover. Given the takeover was a given. But transition can happen in some purchases before obligations are met.

 

[B-dos]

Yes, as a professional "shit stirrer" I imagine that it does amuse you, and in case you did not realise it I think its an open forum, not sure at any point that any of those "compelled to comment" realsied that it was your own personal domain.

ive never claimed it was my personal domain cram

just that those who seem compelled to comment about a discussion that they are not involved in and have no intention of being involved in amuse me

 

[B-dos]

.

It is a ridiculous situation. At best there should have been an independent administrator come in between the vote date and the settlement.

well the good news is the early involvement of HSG has secured some of the biggest names in the game to join the club next year and has boosted membership and attendence at games.

hardly a bum deal

 

[cram]

ive never claimed it was my personal domain cram

just that those who seem compelled to comment about a discussion that they are not involved in and have no intention of being involved in amuse me

Yes, easily amused I guess and who are "those" that you refer to?

 

[perverse]

I have never ever seen a case where the purchaser has been able to go in and operate a business before actually purchasing the business. Ever. I have never seen a case where the purchaser has been able to make fundemental changes to the day-to-day operations of the business before they have paid a cent for the right to do so.

It is a ridiculous situation. At best there should have been an independent administrator come in between the vote date and the settlement.

so, in that case, whose fault is it for giving Tinkler the keys to the car before the payment had cleared, so to speak? all of this would clearly be a non issue had this not occured.

it wouldn't be... the board would it?

 

[Serc]

all of that is certainly relevant, and frustrating for all involved at present, i'm sure. as i've said before, acceptable collateral damage in the grand scheme of things. a harsh reality... but for the long term benefit of the club.

Yep I'm more than happy for this little episode to be over with (it seems to be pretty close already which is good ) and move on to the big, bright future ahead!

i'm a little curious why HSG were able to install their guy as the interim CEO before the sale had actually occured.

I don't know much about this either and am curious as well, certainly the fact that Palmer was the temporary CEO highlights the evidence that suggests HSG have been in control of the Knights finances since the morning after the vote.

who didnt get paid for three months?

I am only speaking from my own experience (and from what I've heard) but there may be others out there who, until last week, haven't been paid a cent since the night of the vote. But thats not so much the point, and note that I didn't feel it was right to raise this before, for a few reasons, including what perverse suggested above. I feel its ok to mention now, as we all know that Tinkler has made the goodwill gesture and put that $3.5 million into the club to keep it ticking over between now and August 10. And of course there's also been all the impressive announcements made in the past 3 months also. Hopefully it is all good from now on

 

[Big Tim]

Its the boards fault for allowing HSG to have a say in day to day running of the business essentially.

But, like everybody else, they took HSG's word for what was going to happen and this is how it turned out.

For mine they are both to blame, as it is ludicrous to give up control of your asset before it has been paid for. But at the same time, there was obviously goodwill between the parties that is being pushed to its limits.

Again, if I were on the board, I would have done everything that they have done, including allowing HSG to take control of the club, and openly criticising them to get them to pay the money that is part of their purchase.

If I had the benefit of hindsight, HSG wouldnt have been able to make decisions about the day to day running of the club until the sale was completed.

Oh, hindsight, how important you are.

FWIW B-Dos, the "inept" board were doing what they believed to be the right thing for this club. That was to allow the new owner access to the running of the club, to get it moving in the direction that they needed, rather than a complete reform once handover happened.

Stick the knife in all you want, they just want to see this club succeed.

 

[Alex28]

Well he technically isnt owner yet. that HSG was allowed to come in and take over operations prior to full ownership is something id expect you to lambast the 'volunteers' about.

you have no idea what the clubs finances are like. you have no idea how HSG has been running things beyond a new ticket and membership pricing model

it seems reasonable to me to conclude that HSG is runnnig the club whilst the formalities of the sale are completed. should the club incur losses (which is nothign new is it?) dutring this time, HSG are fully aware these will need to be covered in the future - so they do have a liability. i would expect that their business model involves far more than lowering ticket prices and that many of these elements are unable to be implemented immediately and the decision to lower prices was made to create some goodwill and spark some excitement amongst fans in full knowledge that reduction in revenue would have to be absorbed until the full takeover has taken place.

its becoming a silly circular argument alex. any commentary about what HSG is doing behind the scenes is speculation and pointless. my position is that the directors only have them selves to blame for the state of the club and the debt which threatened the clubs survival and their personal financial position.

I have stated a number of times putting HSG as managers prior to formal ownership is a stupid move and one that essentially has allowed Tinkler to take as much time as he wants to settle on the purchase. In this respect the board members have been stupid agreed. And putting the inverted comma's around volunteers is pretty arrogant - they don't get paid to be on the board of the club and have worked hard to ensure we have had a club to support all this time and shouldn't be forgotten or ridiculed.

I don't have anything firm around how the club is operating agreed, however I know a little more than what has just been published in the papers. I also know that basic business principals suggest that if you cut your prices by more than the level of growth of patronage your business experiences must mean you get less revenue. If crowds are up by around 20% - and that is all it would be - I am damn sure that the cost of tickets have reduced by more than that.

It's all well and good to say that HSG will wear the cost for losses incurred under their management however that doesn't help the business whilst Tinkler isn't handing over the cash. I'm not interested in what happens after he settles - he is the one to wear the liability in this case. The club will at least have working capital to get them through to mid-August when it (might) settle, but the way he is doing business with and through the club doesn't seem any different to the way he does business personally, and it isn't something I particularly admire.

 

[B-dos]

FWIW B-Dos, the "inept" board were doing what they believed to be the right thing for this club.

its quite obvious that the board pushed for their desired settlement date so that they could pay off the huge debt they had accrued and owed to the ATO.

tinkler agreed and took over the day today running however unfortunately things didnt go to plan as happenns with these complex deals

That was to allow the new owner access to the running of the club, to get it moving in the direction that they needed, rather than a complete reform once handover happened.

im not sure theres much of a difference really however i certainly agree that HSG taking over was an excellend move which resulted in the signings we have made and the changes to the club we have seen

Stick the knife in all you want, they just want to see this club succeed.

no doubt that was part of it after they almost ran it into the ground

another large and obvious factor was they wanted their tax bill paid

 

[B-dos]

I have stated a number of times putting HSG as managers prior to formal ownership is a stupid move and one that essentially has allowed Tinkler to take as much time as he wants to settle on the purchase. In this respect the board members have been stupid agreed. And putting the inverted comma's around volunteers is pretty arrogant - they don't get paid to be on the board of the club and have worked hard to ensure we have had a club to support all this time and shouldn't be forgotten or ridiculed.

many such positions are unpaid alex. people join boards for all sorts of reasons - rarely money.

but we dont call them all 'volunteers' to make it sound better

I don't have anything firm around how the club is operating agreed, however I know a little more than what has just been published in the papers. I also know that basic business principals suggest that if you cut your prices by more than the level of growth of patronage your business experiences must mean you get less revenue. If crowds are up by around 20% - and that is all it would be - I am damn sure that the cost of tickets have reduced by more than that.

It's all well and good to say that HSG will wear the cost for losses incurred under their management however that doesn't help the business whilst Tinkler isn't handing over the cash. I'm not interested in what happens after he settles - he is the one to wear the liability in this case. I'm worried about how the club gets by now, and how his flippant attitude towards when he pays the cash for the club affects others. And it is.

has there been a suggestion the club is struggling to operate under HSG alex?

 

[Big Tim]

its quite obvious that the board pushed for their desired settlement date so that they could pay off the huge debt they had accrued and owed to the ATO.

tinkler agreed and took over the day today running however unfortunately things didnt go to plan as happenns with these complex deals



im not sure theres much of a difference really however i certainly agree that HSG taking over was an excellend move which resulted in the signings we have made and the changes to the club we have seen



no doubt that was part of it after they almost ran it into the ground

another large and obvious factor was they wanted their tax bill paid

You serious bro???

You are now gonna get on the boards back about the fact we had debts, and they struck a deal with someone to buy the club, warts and all, to get us going in a positive direction??

Seriously, Tinkler wasnt the white Knight you are lead to believe. It has been stated several times before that the club was actively seeking privatisation, or another way to secure the club's future.

Whether Tinkler's option was the clear best or not is a moot point, (ie I dont want to get itn a debate about Burro or the Trust)as it is the one we voted for. But it is arrogant to imply that Tinkler is treating us like a charity and "bailing" out our board.

They have been actively seeking ways to get our club working the way we all want for some time.

 

[B-dos]

You serious bro???

You are now gonna get on the boards back about the fact we had debts, and they struck a deal with someone to buy the club, warts and all, to get us going in a positive direction??

im just explaining why i think they wanted the deal done so urgently tim

Seriously, Tinkler wasnt the white Knight you are lead to believe. It has been stated several times before that the club was actively seeking privatisation, or another way to secure the club's future.

no doubt. its obvious they needed a bailout.. and no doubt theyd have NEVER come close to getting the deal they got with tinkler

Whether Tinkler's option was the clear best or not is a moot point, (ie I dont want to get itn a debate about Burro or the Trust)as it is the one we voted for. But it is arrogant to imply that Tinkler is treating us like a charity and "bailing" out our board.

it is undeniable the tinkler option was the clear best tim

They have been actively seeking ways to get our club working the way we all want for some time.

interestingly i didnt see any other billionairres knocking on the door to offer what tinkler did for a club barely able to survive

 

[Big Tim]

im just explaining why i think they wanted the deal done so urgently tim



no doubt. its obvious they needed a bailout.. and no doubt theyd have NEVER come close to getting the deal they got with tinkler



it is undeniable the tinkler option was the clear best tim



interestingly i didnt see any other billionairres knocking on the door to offer what tinkler did for a club barely able to survive

1. We all wanted the deal done. We could not become a powerhouse with the current structure.

2. Of course we did. You can not prove that we would NEVER have gotten a better offer.

3. Agreed. The Tinkler option was clearly the best available, but you cant possibly argue it would be the best offer EVER. Same as I cant realistically offer that we could have got better eventually, though I feel that option would carry more weight going forward.

4. We will not know, as we made our decision to go with Tinkler. There was the Trust model, that whilst it would not have improved things, it would have given us the ability to remain in the NRL. Not as good as the deal agreed, but a better option than folding.

 

[perverse]

actually, by virtue of Rob Tews addresses to members at various members meetings, imploring our membership that an offer like this will never come around again, it's a safe conclusion that we have not had an offer that is in the ballpark of this one, and for the forseeable future never would have.

fair enough to say it can't be proven (that is technically the politically correct answer i suppose, but i loathe political correctness as something people hide behind in order to "not lose" a debate), but many of us have heard from several horses mouths how far and above this offer is from anything typical. it's a safe assumption that it's the best we have ever had or will get, because the board itself was telling us that it's way above the best we're ever likely to get. logically that would assert that we haven't had an offer like this before... in fact i'm pretty sure at a couple of the members meetings it was outlined that we have fielded offers before, but nothing of this magnitude.

telling someone they can't prove something doesn't really make it incorrect. i can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sky is blue at the moment, for example... but we know it is the case. it's not like B-Dos is throwing specific numbers around with that statement to further his point, there is plenty of evidence and inferred knowledge that has come to light that would suggest this is the biggest offer we've ever had. we've been told as much behind semi-closed doors. it's certainly way above the most an NRL club has ever seen. i suppose the argument can be made that in 10 or 20 years time a better offer may have come along, but to be honest it may have been too late by then. the Patrons Trust was flimsy. counting on hypotheticals in the future is really moot... and not worth discussing. whether a better offer would have come along is irrelevant, but it was also stupidly unlikely, regardless.

that covers points 2 and 3... 1 and 4 i don't really disagree with, have knowledge of or particularly care about, they are fair enough i suppose.

 

[B-dos]

3. Agreed. The Tinkler option was clearly the best available, but you cant possibly argue it would be the best offer EVER.

no we cant predict the future tim. but i can say it is highly unlikey another buyer would have offered a better deal than tinkler did when he did

Same as I cant realistically offer that we could have got better eventually, though I feel that option would carry more weight going forward.

im not sure i understand what you mean?

4. We will not know, as we made our decision to go with Tinkler. There was the Trust model, that whilst it would not have improved things, it would have given us the ability to remain in the NRL. Not as good as the deal agreed, but a better option than folding.

yep, the trust is a better option than folding. thankfully the board had a backup option as they certainly needed one due to the state the club was in