You're bending a bit of truth regarding Hages. It was never established that he could coach, only that Johns could play. Given that I wasn't around on the forums, as a lurker or otherwise pre 2003... maybe even 2004 season, I couldn't say what our supporters said about Hages at that time.
When our clubs swapped coaches, Knights fans were saying that Hages rode to that GF win on the back of Warren Ryan. Trouble is that Eels fans remember 2001 - we had arguably the most successful attacking side of the modern era slaughtering a semi final opponent (Warriors) by 50, with our coach witholding a replacement so we could play with 12 men. Thats how confident we were - volunteering to play a man down in a semi final.
Two weeks later our phenomenally gifted side was smashed off the park in half an hour by a one man team with a sh*t coach? I doubt that very much. As good as Joey was, his GF display was not classic Joey - average players like Rudder, Peden and Perry played blinders. For us, huge talents like Hindmarsh, Lyon, Hodgeson and Cayless played sh*t.
From then you made the finals in 02, 03 and06. We made them in 02 and 05. After the swap, Hages took us to a prelim final in 06, and Smith caused a sh*tstorm up there before pissing off to Easts.
Fans of both clubs were happy when the coaching swap happened, but Hagan's record suggests that he could coach - at least better than Brian SMith.
I guess what it comes down to, Misty, is that I was involved in the takeover process of our club far more than any single other person in this thread. I was at stakeholder meetings, I attended closed sessions with both Ken Edwards, Troy Palmer... hell, even Steve Burraston, too. There are 3 other forum personalities I can guarantee were at most of the same stuff, and none of them are present in this thread, either. I know the ins and outs of the deal very specifically, and know the reasons why things were put in place. I have a hardcopy of the final takeover proposal at home. You say Tinkler is going to drag us under, my response to that is simply that it isn't a concern of mine. I've explained a multitude of times in this thread, in occasionally extremely verbose terms, why I'm not worried about Tinkler going bankrupt. Going over the same deeply trodden ground doesn't fill me with any amount of excitement at this stage.
I have no argument against what you know. The trouble is, no one is yet to set out exactly how the Knights are safe. As I see it, the bank guarantee is reliant upon Tinkler failing to provide an audit saying he's paid up what he promised to the Knights, the Newcastle RL and the Juniors. But is it as clear cut as that date arriving without the said proof, and the Knights members walking into the bank, coming out with $20 million, and being completely separated from any link to Tinkler?
The way I see it, if that was the case, how come Tinkler didnt just default ownership when he didnt submit the audit? And has Tinkler got some other trick up his sleeve to save that $20 million payout?
To me, having your club tied to Tinkler as his empire crumbles is not a situation I'd like my club to be in. There is definitely a different vibe around the place now than there was this time last year when you nabbed the biggest coaching name there is and three internationals - adding a fourth mid season. This year you have signed journeymen, and a fringe Origin player. That wasnt the future you were looking at 12 months ago when the Bennett signing suggested you would be one of the biggest players in the market.
Thats not to mention how it could affect sponsorship, or other "social capital"
So am I angry about the fat man trying to drag us down with him? Not at all, because our fate isn't tied to him.
You have a wind up order in court. No, it is likely it wont get that far. But f*ck me it shouldnt have gotten this far either!
Had Tinkler got his way during the takeover, then I would be worried... but he didn't, and you would have had to have been there to know that. You can speculate all you like about the value of the bank guarantee, but it's all hot air. It was put in place SPECIFICALLY for the eventuality that he went bankrupt.
On the outside, it seems to me that they way Tinkler operates, and the way the deals were done, that unless the thing is iron clad foolproof, I wouldnt rest easy until the cash is in the bank.
With all the extra money getting pumped into the game, it would be foolish to even consider that the NRL would allow the Knights to die meekly, even if you took the bank guarantee completely out of the equation.
Again, I have never considered it, nor has anyone else, DESPITE lots of suggestions by Knights/Tinkler fans to the contrary - apart from one barb I sent about them playing for the Bears next year. I have no idea why you lot think anyone is deathriding your club. No one is. In fact, everyone is expressing concern for your club because of the unethical arsewipe and his descent into hell that you are tied to.
Why should I get stuck into my own teams supporters for sticking up for the bloke?
But didnt you just say this....
Had Tinkler got his way during the takeover, then I would be worried...
That's hypocritical. You lot are happy to bag Burraston and Tew - who fought for the guarantee against the wishes of your beloved Tinkler - whe you admit that Tinkler's main intention was NOT to act in the best interests of the club -as evidenced by the non payment of ground hire and the impending court action to wind you up?
Sounds like you have all rung Gids.
Sure, they're probably wrong - but so is just about everyone else. I've tried to set the story straight a couple of times, failed under an ocean of bullshit spewed out of the dope brigades stupid fingers, and left the issue be for the most part. The whole thread is a complete joke of sizable proportions, and doesn't have any tangible merit outside of rustling jimmies until a significant development occurs in relation to the Knights.
Get real! The ocean of bullsh*t has come from the Tinklerphiles! "All corporations act like that". "Tinkler's finances are not threatened". "No one pays until they get a letter of demand or a court summons". One Tinklerphile ridiculed me because I pay my electricity bill on time ffs!
Besides, I would have thought getting a wind up order in court, and getting sued for not paying rent on your home ground were significant developments!
If Tinkler goes bankrupt tomorrow, then he will have done our club a deep, amazing favour. If he sticks around longer, then we benefit from that, too. I'm not angry, because there is nothing to be angry about.
You rang Gids, didnt you!
I'd be careful with Ken Edwards over there at Parra, too. Smooth operator on face value... bit of a snake in the grass, I've heard recently. He certainly took Tinks for a fair ride. Don't think he'll put the interests of the club in front of his own, anyway.
If he took Tinks for a ride, he's a f*cking champion! Anyway, being a smooth operator/snake in the grass probably puts him in good company with our f*cking board. I doubt however that we will get sued for not paying for the use of Parra Stadium, nor will we be in danger of being wound up by the ATO because of Ken Edwards.
Especially when you consider that we're already $5 million ahead (roughly the debt we were in)... and that's money already paid, done and dusted. The guarantee drops to $10.3mill with yearly CPI increases after January 31st this year... which is the most likely reason for the Members Club getting a little anxious a couple of weeks ago. Little has been made of the fact that the Members Club walked away from that meeting satisfied with where everything is at. Let me tell ya, there is plenty enough self-interest in that bunch to kick up a stink if they see something they consider awry at the club.
You sound like a Tinklerphile yourself. Yet the Members Board, for whatever faults or political internal rumblings exist within them, want the Knights continued existence first and foremost. You certainly cannot say that about Nathan Tinkler!!!!!!!!
That point is why this thread keeps going.
None of us non Knights supporters can understand how you can support a man whose primary concern is not in your clubs best interests over a group whose primary concern is! Without anyone explaining the nuances of proof that the club is 100% safe in Tinklers hands, how do you expect any of us to believe that you lot havent all gone start raving mad?
