NRL fails to find a buyer for Knights

[Burns]

THE NRL’s initial attempt to sell the Knights has ended in anti-climax, leaving the governing body to continue running Newcastle’s franchise indefinitely.

The NRL, which has bankrolled the Knights since the demise of Nathan Tinkler in 2014, launched a sales process in September by calling for expressions of interest and appointing Tony Garrett, the head of mergers and acquisitions at Deloitte Australia, to broker a deal.

But despite approaches from 17 entities, several based overseas, NRL officials were not satisfied any could meet the criteria for sustainable long-term governance.

Two parties remain in contention, but have been told to reconsider their bids and reapply if they can address shortcomings identified by the NRL.

“The NRL are not going to be spooked into a sale,’’ NRL head of club and state services Tony Crawford told the Herald.

“We’re going to hang about for the right ownership structure for this club.

“The ARL Commission’s position is that we’ve invested heavily in this club, both in terms of time and financially, and a short-cut will hurt us all.

“The Commission’s position is that they’re not prepared to take a short-cut. It’s not a case of finding an owner, it’s a case of finding the right owner.’’

Crawford said the Knights remained “actively for sale” and he was hopeful the two entities still in contention would submit improved business plans for consideration.

He said that expressions of interest had come from as far afield as America, England, China and Papua New Guinea, but added that the NRL was “disappointed with the level of interest we received locally’’.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4300321/nrl-unable-to-find-new-owner-for-knights/?cs=305

Hmm, while I'm glad the NRL didn't sell us off to any sub-par bids, it's a worry that nothing has eventuated.

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

Perhaps local interest might be sparked by our newest recruit.

 

[alexwilliams_66692007]

Hmm, that sucks.

 

[taipan]

They don't want another Tinker issue.
Playing it safe for the long term,is doing it for the fans and future generations.

 

[perverse]

This smells f**king weird to me. There were quite a few interested parties. Some local from my understanding. So now what? What makes the NRL think someone new will come along? The for sale sign has been on the front lawn for a long time now.

I feel like it's actually just down to two parties, and something about both bids is unsatisfactory to the NRL. Seems like posturing. I'm not sure what the shortfall would be, but if it's the sale price I will f**king spew.

 

[Glendale]

They don't want another Tinker issue.
Playing it safe for the long term,is doing it for the fans and future generations.

Agreed.

We want to hear some good news but we don't want to rush into another bad buyer.

It sucks being owned by the NRL though.

 

[macavity]

I reckon the "sale price" is a sticking point. Those willing to pay it aren't suitable, and those suitable aren't willing to pay the NRL for something that isn't really theirs to sell.

 

[slotmachine]

It sucks being owned by the NRL though.

They're tipping a million a year, would a new owner be able to put in any more?

Also, did we ever find out why the members club declined to take back ownership of the club?

 

[Knight76]

This smells f**king weird to me. There were quite a few interested parties. Some local from my understanding. So now what? What makes the NRL think someone new will come along? The for sale sign has been on the front lawn for a long time now.

I feel like it's actually just down to two parties, and something about both bids is unsatisfactory to the NRL. Seems like posturing. I'm not sure what the shortfall would be, but if it's the sale price I will f**king spew.

This feels like such a kick to the nuts after todays good news with Ponga.

The NRL has been talking up the sale saying they have a good number of interested parties both in Australia and internationally. Now, apparently none of them were worthy.

Smells like nobody wanted to pay the asking price. All this will do is drive any potential buyers away next time they want to dangle us on a string. Especially those who were involved in this process.

Hopefully one of the potential buyers will say something about the process and why nodoby was good enough.

Back to being under funded by the NRL I guess.

 

[Caped Crusader]

Dunno, I think it's more likely that some pieces were missing from the prospective buyers. Not enough business acumen , insufficient planning, unwilling to meet certain caviets etc. Just because there were several interested parties doesn't mean any of them were suitable

I'm not sure what the NRL gains by keeping a hold of the club if a suitable, long term owner was interested.

I'm happy to wait it out a little longer

 

[Noname36]

This is all a bit weird. Not that long ago we're told the club will be sold by christmas but now there are no suitable buyers at all.

On one hand I'm happy the NRL aren't just selling the club off to anyone but on the other I have a sinking feeling that we're going to be NRL owned (translation: extremely poor and controlled) for a very, very long time.

 

[Knight76]

I read somewhere that there were 11 interested separate parties/consortiums.

How strict must the criteria be that all 11 fail to meet the grade?

I'm not in a hurry to sell off the club to the first buyer that has the cash, but it's not a good look being shopped around and having 11 interested parties all fail. I'd like to know more about what the criteria was, what facet did they fail to meet.

The Knights media statement says the process was very transparent, well it hasn't been for the fans or members. Virtually no information was released except to say the sale was being investigated.

Now that it has failed, surely some explanation should be provided to why exactly, all potential owners failed to meet the criteria, and what that criteria was in general terms.

 

[perverse]

If the NRL were fair dinkum about transparency and having the community involved then the Members Club would be involved or at least informed. What ever happened to our $1 buyback clause? Seems to me that instead of helping the Members club and facilitating our return to a community model in the wake of Tinks, the NRL have swooped in and are dictating our future without any real care about the wishes of the community or the club

I feel like the NRL want to recoup the money they've spent on us, or even profit from the situation. I really do feel like we deserve to know why the bids failed. If it's for a reason that was in the Knights best interest, then surely shaming them publicly on the point won't hurt, especially when they're anonymous.

 

[slotmachine]

The members club gave up the right to a full buyback and settled for 20% ownership when Tinks was punted, but never explained why apart from generic statements about it being in the interest of stability etc.

From memory there was some murkiness around the directors being sued by a former supplier and the NRL/football club agreed to fund their defence, so it might have something to do with that?

If people want to be angry at anyone it's the directors of the members club who apparently gave the football club away to the NRL.

Of course if they had kept the ownership in the hands of members, the football club would have most likely folded under the weight of Tinkler/HSG debts and accumulated trading losses, and the NRL would own it anyway.

 

[slotmachine]

Actually, they could have pulled a dragons and sold off 50% of the club to an outside party to try and keep going. At least the money from the sale would be invested back in the club.

 

[betcats]

Ponga can buy them in a couple years.

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

Maybe the guys that did knightsrebuild could hit up Matt gidley to source the info as to what the actual criteria is and where the bidders failed. If they don't want to give out the information they are hiding something.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Im glad they are looking for a good owner rather than just that biggest cash amount...

Its the best option for us and the right approach for the ARLC (if we get ANOTHER Tinkler, the ARLC will just get another smoking ruin of a club in 3 years and need to start the whole thing over again)

 

[TooheysNew]

Maybe the guys that did knightsrebuild could hit up Matt gidley to source the info as to what the actual criteria is and where the bidders failed. If they don't want to give out the information they are hiding something.

They meaning the Knights or the NRL?

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

They meaning the Knights or the NRL?

Either. I'd hope the NRL would be keeping our CEO informed of everything in the whole process.