Knights knock back $10m Tinkler offer

[Joker's Wild]

Everyones agreeing with Karmawave:crazy:

Do I hear hooves?

 

[Big Tim]

Freddo, if it was a guaranteed 10 mil a year for 10, there wouldnt be an argument.

The offer has been withdrawn, and both articles I read state "up to 10million".

 

[Joker's Wild]

Ignore the Freddotroll Tim, the guy is a paint sniffer

 

[Serc]

Best interests of community on top of list
BY NEIL GOFFET
11 Nov, 2010 01:00 AM

KEY Knights sponsors weren't buying into yesterday's debate over Nathan Tinkler's bid to buy the NRL club, but several welcomed the plan.
The richest man in Australia under the age of 40 offered to buy the Knights for $10 million and said it would remain a non-profit, community organisation for the next 10 years.
Knights chairman Rob Tew rejected the offer because he did not think it was a good deal but some club sponsors said the Knights board should consider it.
"Any proposal that ensures the long-term strength, security and success of the Knights should be supported wholeheartedly by the Knights board," NIB managing director Mark Fitzgibbon said.
"They must consider what is in the best interests of fans, the players, coaches, sponsors and community."
Major sponsor Coal & Allied did not indicate if it would continue as a sponsor if Mr Tinkler, a major shareholder in Aston Coal, took over the club with his company Tinkler Sports Group.
"Coal & Allied was pleased to commit under its current contract to a fourth year in 2011 as naming rights sponsor of the Newcastle Knights," a company spokesman said.
"And we look forward to continuing our strong partnership to support communities in the Hunter Valley."
Stadium sponsor EnergyAustralia and corporate partner NBN Television offered no comment on the issue.
But corporate partner Newcastle Newspapers, publisher of the Newcastle Herald, said the board should put the offer to the members.
"It's a community-owned rugby league club," general manager Julie Ainsworth said. "Privatisation issues like these need to be put to the members and sponsors so they are aware of what is happening within their own club."
Stadium beer rights holder Tooheys could not be contacted.

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...ests-of-community-on-top-of-list/1994048.aspx

 

[Alex28]

Isn't that funny - no sponsor would commit to an opinion bar the Herald - whose owner has a fractured relationship with Tinkler which it is trying to repair. Noticeably Jodi McKay - who is running again for parliament and whose reputation is shot - is backing Tinkler and bagging the Knights again...

 

[B-dos]

sponsors would be silly to comment before any deal was done alex

 

[B-dos]

1.2 million down the crapper per year if we take the offer is a pretty big stumbling block to be sure. C & A has been great to the club over the last 5 or so years, coming on board in '05 when noone else would touch us. I think the board has a pretty big obligation not to piss them off and is well within their rights to protect that relationship

firstly there is nothing to say coal and allied will walk

secondly there is no doubt they would be replaced should they walk

all this talk about being 1.2 mil worse off is complete rubbish

 

[Karmawave]

Does anyone really think Tinkler is going to buy a sporting team like the Knights and not invest massively in it to ensure we are successful?

I mean, the guy is a spendthrift - do any of you have any idea what he has spent on racehorses over the last couple of seasons? It would make the value of the Knights seem like loose change.

He is clearly passionate about sport, and passionate about the Knights, and his character has proven money is not an object.

I cannot see why such a big issue is being made about him not coming up with a minimum commitment or set figure to invest in the Knights. I mean seriously, the bloke isn't going to underspend on the club ffs. It's not in his nature, and his horse racing ventures have proven that.

I am sure if Tinkler takes over the team, money and investment into it will not be an issue.

I am just as sure, that even if some current sponsors will not return if the club is owned privately, that other new sponsors will step into the fray.

For every sponsor that might not invest into a privately owned team, I have no doubt there will be a new sponsor who will step in and sponsor the Knights under Tinkler or private ownership. Lets face it, there would be plenty of sponsors around right now who wouldn't even consider sponsoring the club the way it is being run currently, who may reconsider that option if they knew the club was a privately owned modern sporting team with unlimited resources to ensure long term on field success.

After all, Souths sponsorship wasn't affected by Crowe and Holmes A Court owning the team was it? Clearly it improved dramatically. ( Oh yeah, and Souths have another thing we don't have - people actually want to go there to play )

Ultimately, if he owned the Knights, financial investment will be Nathan Tinklers problem anyway - not the Knights current board, or members. He is a shrewd and smart businessman, and his make up has shown that being second best isn't an option. The current board won't be 1.2M worse off, we won't be, it will be Tinklers problem.

If Tinkler owns this club, no minimum commitment should even need to be discussed. He'll be an unlimited cash cow, and if we think otherwise, we are being naive. Tinkler has shown he'll spend whatever he wants to be #1. Any investment in the Knights will be the same. Anything other than that would go against everything he has shown in other sports in the last 3 years.

The guy can be prickly and pedantic and moody blah blah blah, but the last thing we should be worrying about is that he won't put enough cash into the place.

 

[B-dos]

SPECULATION REGARDING PURCHASE OFFER FOR NEWCASTLE KNIGHTS
10/11/2010 9:08:38 PM

The Newcastle Knights today responded to media speculation concerning an offer for the club by businessman Nathan Tinkler.

Contrary to media speculation there is currently no formal offer to acquire the club..

oh and if anyone wants to see just how dishonest and untrustworthy the current management is

have a look here

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/11/10/1225951/376568-tinkler-letter.pdf

a formal offer

this only supports the comments posted by karma and agreed upon by all here

this club is a disgrace. the sooner jokers like burraston and co are turfed out the better

 

[B-dos]

and a point not widely reported yesterday dispels the fears some here have about how the 'members' buy back the club should it be offered for sale

check point 6 for the detail.

given tinkler is clearing our debts and how unlikely it is we will have losses i think its a no brainer and clearly why Tew has not mentioned this being a sticking point

 

[macavity]

Does anyone really think Tinkler is going to buy a sporting team like the Knights and not invest massively in it to ensure we are successful?

I mean, the guy is a spendthrift - do any of you have any idea what he has spent on racehorses over the last couple of seasons? It would make the value of the Knights seem like loose change.

He is clearly passionate about sport, and passionate about the Knights, and his character has proven money is not an object.

I cannot see why such a big issue is being made about him not coming up with a minimum commitment or set figure to invest in the Knights. I mean seriously, the bloke isn't going to underspend on the club ffs. It's not in his nature, and his horse racing ventures have proven that.

I am sure if Tinkler takes over the team, money and investment into it will not be an issue.

I am just as sure, that even if some current sponsors will not return if the club is owned privately, that other new sponsors will step into the fray.

For every sponsor that might not invest into a privately owned team, I have no doubt there will be a new sponsor who will step in and sponsor the Knights under Tinkler or private ownership. Lets face it, there would be plenty of sponsors around right now who wouldn't even consider sponsoring the club the way it is being run currently, who may reconsider that option if they knew the club was a privately owned modern sporting team with unlimited resources to ensure long term on field success.

After all, Souths sponsorship wasn't affected by Crowe and Holmes A Court owning the team was it? Clearly it improved dramatically. ( Oh yeah, and Souths have another thing we don't have - people actually want to go there to play )

Ultimately, if he owned the Knights, financial investment will be Nathan Tinklers problem anyway - not the Knights current board, or members. He is a shrewd and smart businessman, and his make up has shown that being second best isn't an option. The current board won't be 1.2M worse off, we won't be, it will be Tinklers problem.

If Tinkler owns this club, no minimum commitment should even need to be discussed. He'll be an unlimited cash cow, and if we think otherwise, we are being naive. Tinkler has shown he'll spend whatever he wants to be #1. Any investment in the Knights will be the same. Anything other than that would go against everything he has shown in other sports in the last 3 years.

The guy can be prickly and pedantic and moody blah blah blah, but the last thing we should be worrying about is that he won't put enough cash into the place.

Agreed - to a point.

My sticking point is that there should remain a modicum of community OWNERSHIP.

My proposed model is to modify the constitution of the current company limited by guarantee (which is an abysmal document) to provide for:

Tinkler Group (or nominee) - Permanent Member - appoint 4 board members
Ordinary Members (the rest of us) - appoint 4 board members (biannual elections)
Real NRL - Permanent Member - appoint 1 board member

Tinkler clear accumulated losses (2.5mil) and invest $1mil in immediate working capital.

Tinkler establish a trust of minimum $10mil over 10 years with a purpose of supporting the Knights - and as trustee have sole discretion in how those funds are expended. Funds can be otherwise invested when not needed - an accumulating capital fund.

The Trust could itself own and control things like training facilities - the opportunity is limitless.

If Tinkler is genuine in his motives (and I have no reason to think otherwise), that would be acceptable - he has said that the Knights would at all times be not-for-profit.

If it is only about having complete control, that won't be acceptable.

If that proposal was rejected, I would be very interested to see the reasoning as to why it is not acceptable.

 

[macavity]

oh and if anyone wants to see just how dishonest and untrustworthy the current management is

have a look here

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/11/10/1225951/376568-tinkler-letter.pdf

a formal offer

this only supports the comments posted by karma and agreed upon by all here

this club is a disgrace. the sooner jokers like burraston and co are turfed out the better

... which was later withdrawn by an email from Tinkler. Should they publish that just to make you look like a fool?

Fair dinkum mate, we usually agree on most of this type of stuff, but you have lost the plot over this one.

I hope cool heads will prevail.

 

[Karmawave]

I wouldn't go as far as to say turf all of the current management out B-Dos.

After all, a part of the Tinkler offer is having Steve Burraston appointed GM of Knights Rugby League Department. I think Burraston would be valuable in a management situation where there was an unlimited amount of resources to help run the place. Burraston has been in cost cutting mode, and Tinkler clearly sees Burraston as being a good businessman ( which he is ). Lets see what Burraston can do with resources. I guess if Tinkler owns the club, we'll find out.

Ultimately, Knights fans should be more worried about the place becoming an attractive place for players outside the region to want to play football again, than Tinkler not investing enough cash into the place. If Tinkler says he'll provide adequate resources, you can be sure that ' adequate ' won't be conservative.

 

[Karmawave]

Macca, who has your proposed model? Was it submitted to Tinkler and/or the Knights?

Be interesting to see how it all goes mate.

 

[B-dos]

... which was later withdrawn by an email from Tinkler. Should they publish that just to make you look like a fool?

Fair dinkum mate, we usually agree on most of this type of stuff, but you have lost the plot over this one.

im tired of inept management mac

yes the offer was withdrawn by tinkler because the club refused to consider it. however a formal offer was clearly made and it is the clubs fault it is not still on the table

I hope cool heads will prevail.

indeed

get tinkler back to the table asap

 

[Karmawave]

I'm not sure members really have the right to say to an investor you can pay for everything, but we retain some form of official ownership on the board. I'm not sure this has happened anywhere else in the sporting world?

I can't speak for Tinkler, but I reckon the bloke would be offended by having a clause put in any agreement that shows a required minimum investment figure. I mean its Nathan Tinkler :lol:

I could understand why the bloke would be offended by that.

 

[B-dos]

agreed karma

it seems stuff of fantasy to me. its akin to demanding all the dollars but giving up no control

quite simply i have no problem whatsoever if tinkler wants 'control' to run the club he is investing in. thats the whole idea after all. this fear and anger at his perceived motives is bizarre to say the least. its typical of the generic newcaslte mentality. afraid of progress.

looking back over 20 years shows clearly the level of quality we can expect when amateurs are making the decisions

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

The $1,000,000 figure seems a tad low per year but in all honesty the people wanting the Knights to retain control while Tinker just throwing money at it are dreaming, if his brought the club his brought it and should have final say in any decisions that are made. Quite simple IMO.

 

[macavity]

Macca, who has your proposed model? Was it submitted to Tinkler and/or the Knights?

Be interesting to see how it all goes mate.

No one yet mate - I will send it in for them to have a think about.

It just seems such a no brainer - such a win/win.

 

[macavity]

I'm not sure members really have the right to say to an investor you can pay for everything, but we retain some form of official ownership on the board. I'm not sure this has happened anywhere else in the sporting world?

I can't speak for Tinkler, but I reckon the bloke would be offended by having a clause put in any agreement that shows a required minimum investment figure. I mean its Nathan Tinkler :lol:

I could understand why the bloke would be offended by that.

He doesn't have to "pay for everything" - we generally run cashflow neutral.

What he is asked to do (for a large and fair degree of control) is put some capital in.

No issue with taking out the "minimum" - but we need an idea of what will be available.

This "I mean its Nathan Tinkler" is ridiculous - plenty of richer, higher profile and more colourful men have gone bust or not done the right thing by the club they have bought. I agree he deserves huge goodwill - but not carte blanche.