Tinkler proposal back on (take 3)

[Alex28]

I think Burro should have acted exactly as Tew did.

Tew never rolled over, in fact he was the one who shut down the original Tinkler proposal.

But when the right deal was struck, Tew endorsed it as he should and pushed it as the right option for the future of the club.

I think Tew will keep a role at the club, and acted responsibly with no hidden agendas.

The problem is that Tew can recommend what members do in this situation. Burro can't.

Tew and Burro both got credit for shutting down the original inferior offer (remember the infamous email - Tew and Burraston...you keep your club!).

The right deal got struck. Tew went to the members with the boards decision and his line the whole time was that the board recommends the members accept this.

Burraston can not do this. He has a responsibility to make members aware of the benefits and risks of the Tinkler offer. He reminded members that in the rejection of the Tinkler offer there was still an alternate offer on the table.

It was a hard situation for him to be in and if I was in his situation, I probably woulldn't have said much at all. Just say that there are two options and both have benefits and risks and it was up to the members to decide.

What else can he say?

 

[B-dos]

What risk is there (in the absence of Tinkler's offer)

lol.. nice caveat alex

pity it makes the whole hypothetical pointless

oh and you decision to ignore the rest of my post tends to suggest youve hit a wall

 

[Johns Magic]

By Phil Rothfield:

SO Nathan Tinkler is finally the owner of his favourite footy team - another toy to put alongside his 700 racehorses, his studs, his mines, his soccer team, his companies, the flash cars and waterfront mansions.

What the hell would you buy this man for Christmas apart from Wayne Bennett, Kade Snowden or Jamal Idris?

Last night's sell-off to one of Australia's wealthiest men will change the face of the Newcastle Knights forever.

The club that entered the ARL competition with the Broncos in 1988 was built and still proudly exists on a faithful following of battlers and blue-collar workers. The people who resolutely stood up to Super League in 1995 and wanted nothing to do with millionaires and their money.

Tinkler now takes complete control of the club, 100 per cent ownership, all eight positions on the board and his own chief executive to replace Steve Burraston.

Start of sidebar.

He was always going to bulldoze his way in, despite three previous failed attempts to convince the board it was the right way to go.

He's a ruthless operator who demands "my way or the highway" and will take a hands-on approach in the operations of the football club.

He's already approached players, including Sharks prop Kade Snowden, without consulting the coach, the recruitment staff, the CEO or the board.

In horse racing, he's had more trainers than meat pies. Jason Coyle (Warwick Farm/Randwick), Gabrielle Englebrecht (Warwick Farm), John Hawkes (Rosehill), Mick Price (Melbourne), Patrick Payne (Melbourne), Anthony Cummings (Randwick) and Tony Noonan (Melbourne) have all been relieved of their duties in the last few years.

Whether Knights members made the right decision last night only time will tell.

Financially, they've secured their future for life - but the brand has changed forever.

They're now on millionaires row.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...millionaires-row/story-e6frfgh6-1226031693323

I really hate Rothfield, he makes Weidler look like a good bloke.

 

[Johns Magic]

The problem is that Tew can recommend what members do in this situation. Burro can't.

Tew and Burro both got credit for shutting down the original inferior offer (remember the infamous email - Tew and Burraston...you keep your club!).

The right deal got struck. Tew went to the members with the boards decision and his line the whole time was that the board recommends the members accept this.

Burraston can not do this. He has a responsibility to make members aware of the benefits and risks of the Tinkler offer. He reminded members that in the rejection of the Tinkler offer there was still an alternate offer on the table.

It was a hard situation for him to be in and if I was in his situation, I probably woulldn't have said much at all. Just say that there are two options and both have benefits and risks and it was up to the members to decide.

What else can he say?

Firstly, can someone explain why it is that Tew can push something but Burro can't?

And in answer to your question, if indeed he couldn't push one over the other, he could have been a whole lot more positive when discussing the Tinkler deal than he was. The whole time he spoke about it as if there was some major risk that Tinkler would not live up to his word, and that the club didn't necessarily need his money anyway.

 

[Newie is God's Country]

lol - i thought thats how you rolled?

whats that old line about dont dish it out if you cant take it?



cheers newie.

Cheers Mr Glass Jaw.

 

[Rusty]

Firstly, can someone explain why it is that Tew can push something but Burro can't?

And in answer to your question, if indeed he couldn't push one over the other, he could have been a whole lot more positive when discussing the Tinkler deal than he was. The whole time he spoke about it as if there was some major risk that Tinkler would not live up to his word, and that the club didn't necessarily need his money anyway.

I do recall Burraston stating on the Foxsports interview a couple of weeks ago that the deal hinges alot on Tinkler keeping his word. He also spoke alot about the 'risks' involved with the venture.

IMO Burraston had a real problem with privatisation. He was all for the community based set up.

 

[Whats Doing]

I do recall Burraston stating on the Foxsports interview a couple of weeks ago that the deal hinges alot on Tinkler keeping his word. He also spoke alot about the 'risks' involved with the venture.

IMO Burraston had a real problem with privatisation. He was all for the community based set up.

My view was he was all about the Patrons trust which he thought it was his baby. Thank god it didn't get up

 

[The_Joey_Show]

By Phil Rothfield:

SO Nathan Tinkler is finally the owner of his favourite footy team - another toy to put alongside his 700 racehorses, his studs, his mines, his soccer team, his companies, the flash cars and waterfront mansions.

What the hell would you buy this man for Christmas apart from Wayne Bennett, Kade Snowden or Jamal Idris?

Last night's sell-off to one of Australia's wealthiest men will change the face of the Newcastle Knights forever.

The club that entered the ARL competition with the Broncos in 1988 was built and still proudly exists on a faithful following of battlers and blue-collar workers. The people who resolutely stood up to Super League in 1995 and wanted nothing to do with millionaires and their money.

Tinkler now takes complete control of the club, 100 per cent ownership, all eight positions on the board and his own chief executive to replace Steve Burraston.

Start of sidebar.

He was always going to bulldoze his way in, despite three previous failed attempts to convince the board it was the right way to go.

He's a ruthless operator who demands "my way or the highway" and will take a hands-on approach in the operations of the football club.

He's already approached players, including Sharks prop Kade Snowden, without consulting the coach, the recruitment staff, the CEO or the board.

In horse racing, he's had more trainers than meat pies. Jason Coyle (Warwick Farm/Randwick), Gabrielle Englebrecht (Warwick Farm), John Hawkes (Rosehill), Mick Price (Melbourne), Patrick Payne (Melbourne), Anthony Cummings (Randwick) and Tony Noonan (Melbourne) have all been relieved of their duties in the last few years.

Whether Knights members made the right decision last night only time will tell.

Financially, they've secured their future for life - but the brand has changed forever.

They're now on millionaires row.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...millionaires-row/story-e6frfgh6-1226031693323

I really hate Rothfield, he makes Weidler look like a good bloke.

He's not worth hating. He's just a bitter, untalented little man.

He hates the fact that the Knights have been bought because now his precious laughing stocks the Sharks are not only the poorest team in the NRL, they are the poorest team in the NRL by a LONG WAY.

 

[aqua_duck]

Slothfield is the epitome of gutter journalism, if Tinkler had bought the sharks then Sloth would have done a 8 page fluff piece. This deal means sharks are alone on struggle street and also means bye bye Snowden

 

[Alex28]

Firstly, can someone explain why it is that Tew can push something but Burro can't?

And in answer to your question, if indeed he couldn't push one over the other, he could have been a whole lot more positive when discussing the Tinkler deal than he was. The whole time he spoke about it as if there was some major risk that Tinkler would not live up to his word, and that the club didn't necessarily need his money anyway.

Tew speaks on behalf of the board - what it recommends. Burro can also do this, but also has a legal and moral obligation to highlight the benefits and risks to what the members were voting on. They were voting on the Tinkler deal, so he highlighted the risks and benefits to that.

The members were never ever voting on the Trust, so his only obligation to the members was to say that if they decided not to sell the club there was an alternate funding model for the board to consider. The members were never ever going to have to vote for the Trust - it would have been decided at board level.

Don't you think there was a bit of guilt by association in the end given that Old Jim and Poole became the face of the anti-Tinkler movement yet also associated with the Trust and Burro had no right of reply because he was gagged?

 

[boo_boo]

I am against any form of privatisation of any Rugby League club where the members dont have the majority of control.
However it wont be long before other clubs go down the same path as Souths & Newcastle.
Unfortunately the working mans games has become the millionaires preferred way of spending their millions.

 

[Johns Magic]

Tew speaks on behalf of the board - what it recommends. Burro can also do this

I don't understand. He can, or he can't? Your two posts contradict each other.

but also has a legal and moral obligation to highlight the benefits and risks to what the members were voting on. They were voting on the Tinkler deal, so he highlighted the risks and benefits to that.

He played down the benefits and stressed and exaggerated the risks.

The members were never ever voting on the Trust, so his only obligation to the members was to say that if they decided not to sell the club there was an alternate funding model for the board to consider. The members were never ever going to have to vote for the Trust - it would have been decided at board level.

He said that if the Tinkler deal was not taken up, the Patron's Trust deal would be. Essentially the members were voting for the Tinkler deal vs the Patrons Trust.

Don't you think there was a bit of guilt by association in the end given that Old Jim and Poole became the face of the anti-Tinkler movement yet also associated with the Trust and Burro had no right of reply because he was gagged?

I think the guilt came before the gagging. Hence why he was gagged.

 

[Alex28]

Burro can speak as directed by the board. He can't make his own opinion on the matter. Same goes for Tew - he was recommending on behalf of the board as per their decision.

I don't disagree with you that he was probably more enthusiastic about the Trust rather than the Tinkler model, however I would be very surprised if his comments to the media would have been anything other than down the line of what he had to say (fact over opinion).

I have to say I didn't see anything where he said that the Patron's Trust would be taken up if Tinkler was voted down, however happy to be corrected about this.

He was gagged because of how clinical he was about discussing the Tinkler model. I don't think he necessarily did anything wrong.

 

[KempoKnight]

Burro can speak as directed by the board. He can't make his own opinion on the matter. Same goes for Tew - he was recommending on behalf of the board as per their decision.

I don't disagree with you that he was probably more enthusiastic about the Trust rather than the Tinkler model, however I would be very surprised if his comments to the media would have been anything other than down the line of what he had to say (fact over opinion).

I have to say I didn't see anything where he said that the Patron's Trust would be taken up if Tinkler was voted down, however happy to be corrected about this.

He was gagged because of how clinical he was about discussing the Tinkler model. I don't think he necessarily did anything wrong.

I remember reading him saying ( correct me if Im wrong here ) That the patrons trust model would go forward if the tinkler deal didnt and members didnt even get a chance to vote on it.

 

[Serc]

Yes that's true that Burro (or someone else) said that the Patron's Trust would be taken up if the Tinkler offer wasn't supported by the members...and the reason the members 'wouldn't get a chance to vote on it' was because (and correct me if i'm wrong) it didn't require any changes to the constitution, unlike the Tinkler offer. Essentially all it was, was a donation to the club.

Though in a way they were effectively voting for the Patron's Trust if they wanted to vote no - so there was that choice there.

 

[Serc]

Interim board to run show at Knights

• Barry Toohey
• April 02, 2011 12:00AM

Nathan's grand plan: Now that he has control of the Newcastle Knights it is time for Nathan Tinkler to put into play his grand plan. Source: The Daily Telegraph

NATHAN Tinkler may be forced to wait more than a month to gain full control of the Newcastle Knights.
But that won't stop him leaving his mark early on a club he is hellbent on turning into a powerhouse after his privatisation offer was overwhelmingly accepted by club members on Thursday night.
Tinkler Sports Group executive chairman Ken Edwards confirmed yesterday there will be a transition period of between three and five weeks for all the relevant contracts to be signed.
"Until then, Rob Tew [Knights chairman] and myself have agreed both organisations will run a joint board to handle any important decisions which need to be made," Edwards said.
Despite speculation that coach Wayne Bennett is already a done deal at the Brisbane Broncos, Tinkler is yet to be convinced and believes the Knights are still in the hunt for his signature. He remains Tinkler's No. 1 target.
But now that he is officially on board as owner, expect to see negotiations with the likes of Jamal Idris and Kade Snowden ramped up.
And the club will have a new CEO with Steve Burraston set to become the first major casualty of the takeover.

* Wayne Bennett
THE Dragons coach will be in Newcastle tomorrow, possibly fearing an ambush and hoping his side can get away with the two competition points against the Knights.
Tinkler remains hopeful the Newcastle public will see a lot more of him in the future.
"The commercial deal between Nathan and Wayne has already been agreed to. It's just a matter now of whether he wants to travel for another two or three more years," Edwards said.
"As far as we are aware, Wayne is still thinking about where he wants to coach and has made no decision.
"We are really relaxed about it. If Wayne comes, that's fantastic. If he decides not to, we have a great young coach in Rick Stone to take us forward."

* Jamal Idris
THE Knights already have an offer on the table for the Bulldogs star but Tinkler's business connections could well make any deal more attractive. With the Bulldogs and Gold Coast also chasing Idris's signature, Newcastle may well have to up the ante.
The ace up Tinkler's sleeve will be in his ability to attract the support of big business to the club as player sponsors who currently have no direct ties to the Knights. Their money won't count under the salary cap.

* Kade Snowden
WE ALL know where the boss sits on this one.
It was Tinkler who controversially phoned Snowden at the 11th hour and asked him to hold off on signing a new contract with the Sharks.
You would hardly think after going to all the trouble to telephone him from London, Tinkler will drop off trying to bring him to the club.
He's a former local who coach Rick Stone wants back at the Knights. Enough said.

* Steve Burraston
FEW would argue the Knights CEO has done a great job in difficult times to keep the club's head above water.
But he will pay the price for being offside with too many people.
He burnt bridges with the Labor state government over the stadium and is on the nose with the local print media.
During the latter part of the campaign leading up to last Thursday night's vote, he was gagged from saying anything publicly about the bid by the Tinkler organisation because they perceived him to be biased against them.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-show-at-knights/story-e6frexnr-1226032276454

 

[Serc]

Nathan Tinkler ready to up $1.5m bid to lure Wayne Bennett to Knights

• Stuart Honeysett and Peter Kogoy
• April 02, 2011 12:00AM

LESS than 24 hours after taking control of Newcastle, Nathan Tinkler signalled his intentions to do everything in his power to deliver Knights fans the star trio of premiership-winning coach Wayne Bennett, and NSW representatives Jamal Idris and Kade Snowden. That won't be the only change going on in the Hunter region with blood expected to be spilled in both the front office and boardroom - chief executive Steve Burraston among those in danger of losing his position.
The Knights' major sponsor, Coal & Allied United, is also reviewing its deal which expires at the end of the season after members voted overwhelmingly to hand control of the club to the mining magnate at an extraordinary general meeting on Thursday night.
Tinkler has made no secret of his desire to lure Bennett to the Knights with reports he has already offered a deal worth $1.5 million a season and could go even higher if that's what it takes.
Bennett knocked back an offer of $1.1m to remain at St George Illawarra and is adamant money will not be the driving force behind his next career move - making his former club Brisbane favourite to win his signature.
Tinkler Sports Group executive chairman Ken Edwards said the club had a contingency plan which could see incumbent coach Rick Stone offered a five-year contract but the first option was still trying to get Bennett.
"I'm confident we can secure Wayne Bennett's services despite Brisbane being favourites," Edwards said yesterday.
"I don't believe Wayne has made up his mind where he wants to coach next and that's why I believe we're still very much in the hunt for his services.
"But should Wayne Bennett decide to coach somewhere else, current coach Rick Stone will still have a job here.
"We're talking of offering Rick Stone a five-year deal similar to the one made to Branko Culina at the Newcastle Jets in the A-League, should Bennett opt not to come to the Hunter."
Tinkler Sports Group issued a statement yesterday promising a soft transition that could take up to five weeks but will definitely be in place by round 10 against the Warriors given it has promised the club's fans a cheap ticketing pricing plan by then.
However, while the handover might take some time to sort out, Edwards wants to meet Knights football manager Keith Onslow on Monday to see what can be done to entice local talents Idris and Snowden back to the region for next season.
The Bulldogs made their final pitch to keep Idris at Belmore this week but he has attracted plenty of interest with Gold Coast, the Knights and Cronulla all making generous offers.
Snowden caused a storm when he backed out of a press conference to announce he had re-signed with Cronulla after receiving a last-minute phone call from Tinkler to hold off on a decision on his future. "Our plans have not changed in respect of bringing Kade Snowden home to Newcastle," Edwards said.
"We've also got plans to crank up moves to sign Idris away from the Bulldogs.
"The Knights remain a members' club.
"All that's changed is that Nathan Tinkler will now pay the bills."
NRL chief executive David Gallop welcomed the latest private owner to the game.
Tinkler joins a list that includes millionaire Eric Watson at the Warriors and Hollywood actor Russell Crowe at South Sydney.
"It's good to see the process of a members' vote produce such an overwhelming result," Gallop said.
"The game embraced private ownership a long time ago and it's good to hear that the Tinkler Group's plans involve the grassroots and the elite end of the game in Newcastle.
"Once the dust settles we look forward to hearing more of what they've got planned for the Knights."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nnett-to-knights/story-e6frg7mf-1226032263479

 

[RABK]

Well it looks like they'll (TSG) will be going all out to get Bennett and it is extremely hard to see them failing.

 

[RABK]

Oh and it seems Stone is plan B, won't be required if Bennett signs. Harsh.

 

[Alex28]

Yes that's true that Burro (or someone else) said that the Patron's Trust would be taken up if the Tinkler offer wasn't supported by the members...and the reason the members 'wouldn't get a chance to vote on it' was because (and correct me if i'm wrong) it didn't require any changes to the constitution, unlike the Tinkler offer. Essentially all it was, was a donation to the club.

Though in a way they were effectively voting for the Patron's Trust if they wanted to vote no - so there was that choice there.

Consider me stood corrected. Don't quite know how Burro could say that - it's a decision for the board to make. They could have decided to look for another private owner or re-negotiate with Tinky...