Deal or No Deal (Alex V B-dos )

[Alex28]

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

In business, when you are buying something and you have already done your due diligence a settlement term of 60 days is not an "urgent" term to settle. It is pretty normal. 90 days is getting out there. 135 days - which is what Tinkler is essentially asking for now - is pretty abnormal. Pretty generous though if you have been given management of the business, yet don't have to pay a deposit or even a cent for the business until settlement. Even more generous when none of the legal liability for the operation of the business comes back at you at all.

The business model the club previously was never sustainable agreed, however there was nothing suggesting they needed bailing out of anything. You focus a lot on the tax debt - who is to say they had some funds available to pay some of the tax debt, but upon takeover HSG have used these funds for working capital and let the tax debt build up in the view that the funds from Tinkler's takeover would clear the debt?

You say I have no idea of how the HSG-managed Knights finances are. I say you have no real idea of how the pre-vote Knights finances were at that date, what funds or arrangements they had to meet commitments, et al.

No one - bar Gene and Scotty's stalker - are suggesting that the Tinkler deal was not the best option to go by. Just want the man to live up to his word. Not that much to ask.

 

[perverse]

and what is the result of all this whining now that he hasn't lived up to his word Alex? seriously, where are you going with all of this?

what are you going to do next time he doesn't live up to every character of his word, when he flexes the rules a bit to his own advantage? does it matter who he is jerking around? what about when we're the ones jerking others around as the Tinkler run Knights?

ok, good, you want him to live up to his word. i think it's a really immature, short sighted and pedantic stance to take. you seem to have taken some sort of arbitrary moral stance on this one issue... i don't think i really understand what your end-game is on this one, where you are trying to get to with it. as you're aware i have no real problem with what Tinkler has done lately, it's not perfect but it was certainly possible... or even probable. are you just going to continue to cry for the next 10+ years? is that what we have to look forward to?

the reason why everyone is suggesting that you are anti-Tinkler and don't want him at the club is simple - we can't work out where the f**k else you're going with this. if it's just a whinge.. and it has wasted this much time and effort on all our behalves... i'll certainly be sorely disappointed.

 

[B-dos]

The business model the club previously was never sustainable agreed, however there was nothing suggesting they needed bailing out of anything. You focus a lot on the tax debt - who is to say they had some funds available to pay some of the tax debt, but upon takeover HSG have used these funds for working capital and let the tax debt build up in the view that the funds from Tinkler's takeover would clear the debt?

talk about clutching at straws

they were 4-6 million in the red

they owed the tax office 1.65 of this.

to suggest they had a slush fund sitting there to pay this debt is highly unlikely

You say I have no idea of how the HSG-managed Knights finances are. I say you have no real idea of how the pre-vote Knights finances were at that date, what funds or arrangements they had to meet commitments, et al.

im basing my judgements on what we know alex. and that is that we owed creditors between 4 and 6 million and that tew and co werent even aware exactly how much they owed in tax.

No one - bar Gene and Scotty's stalker - are suggesting that the Tinkler deal was not the best option to go by. Just want the man to live up to his word. Not that much to ask.

aside from the delay in settlemtn he hsa done everything asked of him. even handed over 3 million to settle some debts. he has secured some of the bigest names in the game

all of which would never have happened had he not come and saved the club

 

[Alex28]

and what is the result of all this whining now that he hasn't lived up to his word Alex? seriously, where are you going with all of this?

what are you going to do next time he doesn't live up to every character of his word, when he flexes the rules a bit to his own advantage? does it matter who he is jerking around? what about when we're the ones jerking others around as the Tinkler run Knights?

ok, good, you want him to live up to his word. i think it's a really immature, short sighted and pedantic stance to take. you seem to have taken some sort of arbitrary moral stance on this one issue... i don't think i really understand what your end-game is on this one, where you are trying to get to with it. as you're aware i have no real problem with what Tinkler has done lately, it's not perfect but it was certainly possible... or even probable. are you just going to continue to cry for the next 10+ years? is that what we have to look forward to?

the reason why everyone is suggesting that you are anti-Tinkler and don't want him at the club is simple - we can't work out where the f**k else you're going with this. if it's just a whinge.. and it has wasted this much time and effort on all our behalves... i'll certainly be sorely disappointed.

Again mate...if you think I'm worried that I might have wasted some of your time, you think too highly of yourself. I've had some fun and intelligent discussion with B-dos and others about business ethics and the path our new leader is taking our beloved club. Some don't mind, some have some issues. It's a forum - it is all about debating.

I do get worried when he is jerking around our club. I don't care about what he does with supercar clubs and race teams, or race horse owners and trainers. Heck I don't really care what he does with his coal company. But when he is stuffing around the Knights it is a different matter.

You have some issues with morals, and facts and all that stuff because you like to be all cool and anti-establishment and stuff. That's all good mate. You have your niche here as the rebel of the group now that chriswalkerbush has disappeared and I'm fine with that. You want to call me out on actually caring about how our club is being operated - do it. Says more about you than me mate.

I didn't say I didn't want Tinkler in the club. I didn't say I am anti-Tinkler. I just want his to run the club with some ethics and morals. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm fairly sure you can't see where I am going with this because there is a mixture of you not caring about the crux of the topic, and you looking for opportunities to be critical and take pot shots at me. I think B-dos gets where I am coming from even if he doesn't agree. Don't really care if you get my point of view or not.

Now...I hope I haven't wasted more of your time mate. Also, don't think that I haven't missed the regular shots you have had at me in your comments since your tantrum about how I dared to treat you before. As I said previously, if you want some respect, treat others with respect.

If your diatribe was supposed to offend me - and lets face it you try to be all in your face here with the general attempt at being controversial and offensive - it hasn't. I would actually have to care what you thought for it to be offensive.

 

[perverse]

i think you've wasted your own time as much as anyone elses, lol.

ok, so given a choice between a Tinkler run establishment with flexible moral standards versus moral poverty, what is your choice? you may not be able to have your cake and eat it to, and i think that's something that you need to come to terms with. that is where i'm leading with this... i still can't work out where you're going with yours, though. something about everything not fitting into a perfect little box... or something... i dunno, it's all too idealistic for me to fathom.

 

[Alex28]

Of course it is too idealistic to fathom - that would go against the anti-establishment thing you have going on to stand out from everybody else. God forbid that you would agree with anybody.

You can have morals and business. It doesn't have to be one or another. Tinkler assured us that the Knights was for the people and would be treated that way. Hasn't turned out that way at all. I can accept it but I'll sure as hell not be happy about it.

Don't worry about where I'm going with it mate. You just continue doing what you do.

 

[perverse]

are you saying that i never agree with anybody?

i think you're mistaking that with never agreeing with you. what a strange assertion to make...

i also don't feel that any recent developments suggest that the Knights arn't still for the people. i don't know how you join those dots... but ok, i guess. bit of weird logic going on there. i suppose that depends entirely on your own, personal interpretation of what a club being for the people constitutes. once again... weird one...

 

[B-dos]

as far as i can see tinkler has certainly delivered on his promise alex

we have cheap tickets, cheap membership and the best signings weve seen in years

you seem to think 'the people' give a f**k that the deal is taking longer than the board wanted (in order to pay their tax debt)

i disagree, i think people would be extremely pleased with how things have turned out since the deal was approved.

 

[perverse]

agreed B-dos (oh my...), i would say that for the areas that "the people" actually care about, he has delivered a full house on the flop.

 

[Alex28]

Because "the people" don't care how it gets done...just as long as it gets done? That might cut it for the people who really only care about supporting the club if it is cheap. Those are quick to spurn the club if the cost gets too large for them again. We were getting large crowds when the club was successful on the field - didn't matter if the tickets were $30 and not $5. To me that is a better strategy to take.

He's delivered a full house, however it is on an IOU and the casino still hasn't seen the colour of his money.

 

[Newie is God's Country]

I like the fact that thru forum debate i get insight into business dealings cos i am a novice at the inner dealings of privatisation.

 

[perverse]

no, the casino has seen the colour of his money, to the tune of $3.5mill i believe he handed over? not sure on the specific dollar figure...

oh but wait, he might not have... oh dear... unlikely hypotheticals might creep in here again...

you have it backwards Alex, the fairweather supporters are the ones you need to prosper. the core supporters keep a club alive, this is true... but the fairweather fans are the ones that need be courted the most. they are the variation in the bottom line... they're the ones you need to impress. the core supporters will pay, regardless.

 

[Newie is God's Country]

Sad but true perverse on the fairweather supporters. Tinkler knows this better than anyone. His ticket price drop is a big bait for them to come back.

 

[Alex28]

OK...the casino has seen a bit of his cash and the rest is on an IOU? Either way the bet isn't complete.

The fairweather supporters are the ones who would pay $30 a ticket when the club has won 8 in a row at the start of next season and on top of the ladder, but not pay $30 a ticket when we put in efforts like the last few weeks. We had season upon season of those people turning up when we were at our peak.

See...look at you...debating like the rest of us. I'll forgive your snide comments inside the debate. Can't stop looking controversial and cool and stuff.

 

[perverse]

The fairweather supporters are the ones who would pay $30 a ticket when the club has won 8 in a row at the start of next season and on top of the ladder, but not pay $30 a ticket when we put in efforts like the last few weeks. We had season upon season of those people turning up when we were at our peak.

yes, and?

 

[Alex28]

yes, and?

Tinkler isn't going to keep subsidise these fans if the team is performing well and he still has to be paying millions to live up to his end of the deal of the income guarantee. The cheap tickets now are a feel good thing, but that wont last forever.

Those fans we are virtually paying to attend the games now will eventually have to decide whether they are going to pay full price or not. The performance on the field will ultimately dictate whether they still attend.

 

[B-dos]

what on earth are you saying now alex?

one minute you complain about not delivering for the people, and the next youre saying the $5 tickets arent for the 'real fans' anyway?

what a ridiculous suggestion. im sure you are aware there are families who support the club as much as the next person but cannot afford to splash out when tickets were $30 bucks a person?

you are miles off the mark if you think tinkler hasnt delivered on his promise to date and has given 'the people' exactly what they want. an affordable day at the game and the prospect of some of the best names in the game joining next year.

if you honestly think people care about the payment of the ATO bill and the delay in settlement youre having yourself on.

 

[perverse]

he's just trying to dig upwards, B-dos... and i seriously can't be bothered throwing dirt down the hole anymore. i can't even hear when it hits the bottom anymore.

 

[RABK]

he's just trying to dig upwards, B-dos... and i seriously can't be bothered throwing dirt down the hole anymore. i can't even hear when it hits the bottom anymore.

:

:lol:

Gotta admit, that is Gold.

 

[Alex28]

"Real fans", "fairweather fans"...whatever name needs to be put to them. Your comments are very PC mate but still the fact remains once upon a time, when the team was genuine contenders, they were paying to attend in their droves.

And when they are genuine contenders once again they will have to pay.

He has given them what they want - now. Willing to bet me that a season ticket is still the equivalent of $5 per game today (add CPI) in 5 years time?

No chance.

The average fan doesn't care about the ATO bill because it hasn't impacted on the team on the field. There is an element that does care (you and me for starters otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate).

There is also an element that does care about how we get from point A to point B and how we treat those who help us along the way - whether that be Directors, Creditors, Members, Fans, et al.