Knightsrebuild - time to do something.

[Knight76]

The members club is practically broke isn't it? We don't have a leagues club backing us and helping to write off losses etc.

How will we survive in the above ownership model?

 

[macavity]

The members club is practically broke isn't it? We don't have a leagues club backing us and helping to write off losses etc.

How will we survive in the above ownership model?

Who said anything about a future ownership model?

The issue I'm raising isn't what we end up looking like, it is where the proceeds of the sale vest.

 

[Knight76]

Ah, misunderstood what you were saying.

I guess the members club could mount some sort of legal challenge but I guess that would happen after the sale.

I wonder what the contract say between them and the NRL.

 

[Noname36]

Renewed interest from Marwan Koukash.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/bddf362d2fe15b973807c7feb88cdc8c

I wonder what the NRL will think of him as a buyer. He has called for a vote of no confidence in the RFL in the UK due to his side being caught for salary cap breaches. He paid players through his own business ventures outside the cap.

He seems a bit volatile to me. He is talking about selling Salford, after only owning it for 3 years.

We need stability, not another Tinker type whirlwind. Not that I believe Koukash is going to go broke like Tinkler, he has a PHD and is self made. I do think he is a bit of a narcissist though, and we don't need a destabilising owner.

No freaking chance after the Tinkler stuff.

 

[Still Nutty]

I would argue the NRL hold the assets of the club club under a constructive trust to the members. I hope the remnants of the members club mount the same argument.

I wasn't sure what footing the club would be on but I was also mindful that the Tinkler Guarantee money was also there to offset some of the debt and financial issues that the NRL would have taken on board at the time they took 'ownership' - from my perspective the club effectively went into 'voluntary administration' to the NRL.

During that period the club has continued to 'trade', albeit with support from the NRL and has effectively maintained solvency. It would just seem like the NRL has acted as administrators in an operational sense but it now sounds like they are claiming outright ownership, rather than a constructive trust as flagged by Mac and are now going to cream whatever 'profit' might come out of the sale.

 

[Burwood]

I don't necessarily think that the club should get the money once a new owner is on board. What point is there of selling the club for $10m if the majority of that amount went back into the hands of the new owner? Nothing to stop them putting it into their pocket and not reinvesting it in the club.

But I also don't think that the NRL should receive the profits to spend as they wish. They put bugger all money into our club once Tinkler left and I don't feel they should then benefit from that.

The money should be invested in growing rugby league in the region. I'd be happy to see it go towards the funding of the new center of excellence or into grassroots footy.

 

[Still Nutty]

I don't necessarily think that the club should get the money once a new owner is on board. What point is there of selling the club for $10m if the majority of that amount went back into the hands of the new owner? Nothing to stop them putting it into their pocket and not reinvesting it in the club.

But I also don't think that the NRL should receive the profits to spend as they wish. They put bugger all money into our club once Tinkler left and I don't feel they should then benefit from that.

The money should be invested in growing rugby league in the region. I'd be happy to see it go towards the funding of the new center of excellence or into grassroots footy.

A bit clumsy in the way I worded it but this was my point earlier - the purchase price could include time bound caveats of what would be spent by the new owner on things like investment in a centre of excellence, junior development funds, etc. If it goes direct to the NRL, I strongly suspect it will not be re-invested in this region for these purposes and disappear into consolidated revenue.

If contractual commitments of the new purchaser were included on things like quantified local grass roots investment, centre of excellence, etc. This could be considered in the weighing up the various offers and at least we could see that tangible returns to Newcastle are acquired for the sale of what I believe is OUR asset as opposed to the NRLs, who has had stewardship for a relatively short time and only invested the bare minimum to keep it solvent.

 

[macavity]

It would just seem like the NRL has acted as administrators in an operational sense but it now sounds like they are claiming outright ownership, rather than a constructive trust as flagged by Mac and are now going to cream whatever 'profit' might come out of the sale.

I don't know enough of the details to frame an argument in contract law, however it seems there is certainly a case to be made via equity - hence the constructive trust.

Having said that, and having seen NRL contracts previously, I would suggest whatever they put together wasn't to the highest standard and may also be ripe for challenge.

All it takes is an individual or group with standing. I hope someone puts their hand up - I think it outrageous that the NRL wants to profit from administering us. The issue is that those with the best standing are also reliant on the NRL for funding.

 

[Knight76]

The price seems to have gone up, right at the time a billionaire shows some interest.

According to the Australian Financial Review the NRL now wants 15 - 20 million for us.

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/n...-as-sale-process-set-to-begin-20160916-gri0pf

Coincidence? I don't believe in those.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I really hope we dont just go to the highest bidder. We dont need an eccentric billionaire, we smart need people who can make the club self sustaining...

IIRC Rusty last put money into Souths in 2008. I dont want someone who will just put their own money into the club until they get bored, i want someone who can buld a club they dont need to put money into.

And i doubt we will find that person by just asking for the biggest bid...

 

[slotmachine]

Football clubs, as a rule, aren't self sustaining.

Unless you have Australia's third largest city all to yourself or 35k members you are getting a hand out from somewhere.

 

[NK Arsenal]

I really hope we dont just go to the highest bidder. We dont need an eccentric billionaire, we smart need people who can make the club self sustaining...

IIRC Rusty last put money into Souths in 2008. I dont want someone who will just put their own money into the club until they get bored, i want someone who can buld a club they dont need to put money into.

And i doubt we will find that person by just asking for the biggest bid...

Will the NRL allow us to vote for the new owner or will they just do what the FFA did with the Jets and appoint their preferred owner?

 

[slotmachine]

Let who vote? The members club only negotiated a 20% ownership stake when tinkler blew up.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Will the NRL allow us to vote for the new owner or will they just do what the FFA did with the Jets and appoint their preferred owner?

I would HATE for the NRL to give us a vote...

It would come down to who seems like the coolest guy, id much rather the ARLC appoint half a dozen people to examine the business case of each applicant.

I just hope their criteria is more than "how much are you offering?"

 

[Still Nutty]

I would HATE for the NRL to give us a vote...

It would come down to who seems like the coolest guy, id much rather the ARLC appoint half a dozen people to examine the business case of each applicant.

I just hope their criteria is more than "how much are you offering?"

Effectively this is what they have done...reps include some of our current Board (e.g. Eileen Doyle - see http://www.newcastle.edu.au/research-and-innovation/centre/nier/governance/board/eileen-doyle for a profile).

You would hope that the balance of business acumen and RL cultural understanding are blended to come up with the appropriate owner - I do live in hope

 

[Burwood]

It has been very interesting watching the Jets for the last week or two in regards to their new coach after Miller was sacked.

Looks like Jones was selected for three reasons. He's:
1) a local.
2) cheap.
3) McKinna's mate.

Watching McKinna and the local media justify the selection because Jones apparently understands what local fans want and because he can out benchpress Jets players and won't take their crap reminds me very much of the knights when Stone was selected. McKinna has been a one-man selection panel and I look forward to seeing what happens in 12 months time.

 

[Caped Crusader]

Is soccer still a thing?

 

[macavity]

It has been very interesting watching the Jets for the last week or two in regards to their new coach after Miller was sacked.

Looks like Jones was selected for three reasons. He's:
1) a local.
2) cheap.
3) McKinna's mate.

Watching McKinna and the local media justify the selection because Jones apparently understands what local fans want and because he can out benchpress Jets players and won't take their crap reminds me very much of the knights when Stone was selected. McKinna has been a one-man selection panel and I look forward to seeing what happens in 12 months time.

Newtown has a new coach?

 

[Frederick]

Is soccer still a thing?

 

[Nuffy]

Matt Gidley has reached out to Mac and I offering to catch up beefore Christmas to give us an update on progress and open issues.

Its very generous of him and proactive so full credit to him.

We'll try and do it in a week or so, just waiting for confirmation on timing.

Any specific questions anyone wants asked beyond the current open issues?