Knights knock back $10m Tinkler offer

[B-dos]

Sorry mate - that doesn't cut it.

your assumption that the offer says 'up to 10 mil' thereby restricting tinkler to no more than 10 mil is quite simply wrong

That is all great. Prove it and I'm on board.

lol.

it seems your against privatisation full stop

unless you want a contract which sets out exactly what money will be spent and where before giving it your support?

thats a fantasy..

Great. Clarify in the agreement that it is in addition and that is a start. You do agree that the letter doesn't make it clear and that an offer that is to be considered by the board of the club should not be so unclear right?

it would take no effort for it to be clarified alex

if the knights were serous it would be cleared up and the offer still on the table

agreed?

This is my point. It shouldn't need a phone call. It should be clear in the offer. It is not.

thats what negotiation is for

 

[B-dos]

I don't believe its very common at all for a business investor to buy out anything, and still have to state what kind of financial commitment they will make in the future to the old owners. ( Especially for 10 years into the future??? )

I think its flawed and unrealistic and I'd love to see where it has exists anywhere else in the business world to be honest. ( Let alone sporting world )

After all, the responsibility in the future falls onto the new owner, not the old. Companies don't sell out and tell the new owner how to run things, it just doesn't happen.

The Knights member expectations of what they would like to see is unprecedented and does not exist anywhere else in the sporting world and only seemingly justifies how insular Novocastrians truly are.

agreed

youre on a roll in this thread with stating the 100% truth

 

[Karmawave]

I think Patinack and the Knights have to be seen as two very different scenarios.

Of course they are mate. He has spent over $150M on Patinack and his horses ( in the space of a couple of years). He's going to spend much less on the Knights.

It only strengthens his case why he is the man to own the Knights I believe and why these minimum figures being touted as problem areas are a moot point.

 

[macavity]

I don't believe its very common at all for a business investor to buy out anything, and still have to state what kind of financial commitment they will make in the future to the old owners. ( Especially for 10 years into the future??? )

I don't want a buyout - I want to appoint a new (and powerful) permanent member of a limited by guarantee company.

He has stated time and time again that he wants this to be about the community.

Well what is so bad about keeping the community involved?

 

[B-dos]

ensuring the club is not for profit, that all profits are invested in the junior RL etc, giving the members full say on key elements as described in the offer all spell clearly its about the community macca

 

[Karmawave]

He has stated time and time again that he wants this to be about the community.

Well what is so bad about keeping the community involved?

Most of the region have no idea what they are on about? :lol:

It'll be about a community in that what he puts in financially will be a gift, a charity almost.

Community models don't work, or there'd be more of them around the world, and that seems to be an unfortunate reality that we might have to accept.

As sad as it is to remove the Knights from the community the way we know it to be ( in a purely business sense ), the bottom line is if we don't we'll perish eventually. They remain in the community as the Knights, and will likely improve on and off field taking the club into a new exciting era where maybe the games will get 35,000 fans going to once again.

The Green Bay Packers business model couldn't even be applied to the Knights, because the Knights fans are much more fair weather, and Packers premium seat license ownership at high dollar value ( where they make most of their income ), wouldn't work with the Knights faithful who have issues when their $300 for a full SEASON seats ( let alone per game ) go up $10 a year.

 

[macavity]

these minimum figures being touted as problem areas are a moot point.

Agreed.

The sticking point for me is community involvement.

I want real community involvement in our club, not lip service.

My model put forward above covers all the bases - control for him, community involvement for the rest of us, financial security for all.

Hell, the trust idea could be expanded into a unit trust to allow others to also provide for us - for the units (and the attached rights to appoint board members) to effectively be bought and sold as he wants.

There is a much better way to skin this cat - it just takes some creative thinking, patience, and a willingness to listen.

 

[macavity]

Most of the region have no idea what they are on about? :lol:

That might be true, but we are either committed to democratic and egalitarian principles or we aren't.

I see a lot of benefit, and no drawback, to allowing every Knights fan to realistically being able to aspire to serve as a board member.

And as far as this goes:

There is a much better way to skin this cat - it just takes some creative thinking, patience, and a willingness to listen.

I think b-dos is acting the prime example of its negative. This isn't four corners mate, there is no party line to toe here.

 

[Alex28]

your assumption that the offer says 'up to 10 mil' thereby restricting tinkler to no more than 10 mil is quite simply wrong

It is not "restricting" that I am even talking about. It is what he is committing to. That clause gives him an out. I don't think $10 Million is enough to make us the benchmark of the league as he wants us to be.

If he is truly committed to making the club a powerhouse, don't put any limitations on what you are prepared to do. Give the members and fans minimums on what you'll commit to, not caps on what you'll commit yourself to.

 

[B-dos]

and mac with all due respect i think youre acting as one who wants to have his cake and eat it too and acting mainly on your own motivations

your insistence on 'community involvement' may be important to you and your aspirations to be a board member (thats it isnt it??) but is largely irrelevant to the majority of club supporters

the majority of us just want a successful club, one thats run professionally and one that has its financial future secure

 

[B-dos]

If he is truly committed to making the club a powerhouse, don't put any limitations on what you are prepared to do. Give the members and fans minimums on what you'll commit to, not caps on what you'll commit yourself to.

to be fair i dont necessarily disagree with you here. however i maintain my belief that we only stand to benefit from tinkler ownership

(well, maybe not mac and his board member aspirations )

 

[Karmawave]

That might be true, but we are either committed to democratic and egalitarian principles or we aren't.

I see a lot of benefit, and no drawback, to allowing every Knights fan to realistically being able to aspire to serve as a board member.

I see a drawback being that I don't believe its ever been done anywhere else in the world, and that sets itself up as a massive question mark.

If it hasn't been tried anywhere else in the world, by now, there'd have to be some kind of doubt as to why a model like that has not been used or been successful.

The Packers are the only major sporting team in America that is publicly owned, and I think there's something like over 4M shares in existence. If we were ever going to be truly public, we'd really need to have a situation where members pay for a share - not a $20 membership card - but a decent price for a share. ( I think the most recent Packers share price was $200 or more per share ).

Members of a community couldn't realistically expect to have a major say in the running of a team without putting money up surely? I think the fact that a major part of the Tinkler offer assures the community the club, team name, colours are not going anywhere is the most important part of the offer I've read about.

If the Packers remain the only public sporting team in America, we'd have to ask ourselves why there are not more. The public vote with their feet anyway mate.

The Packers have sold out every home game since 1960.

That may go some way to explaining how their sports team is the only community controlled asset that has worked.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Maybe as a non Newcastle based Knights man its different for me but I have to say if I have a choice between a successful George Steinbrenner, and a community based organisation I know which I'll take every day of the week.

 

[Karmawave]

Maybe as a non Newcastle based Knights man its different for me but I have to say if I have a choice between a successful George Steinbrenner, and a community based organisation I know which I'll take every day of the week.

Agree. And even he, at one stage, threatened to move the Yankees from New York to get better deals and support from the NY city council and state government. HAHA. ( Even if the threats were token )

No such threats can be made by Tinkler, as he's already guaranteed the location/team to stay as is as a part of his offer.

 

[macavity]

and mac with all due respect i think youre acting as one who wants to have his cake and eat it too and acting mainly on your own motivations

your insistence on 'community involvement' may be important to you and your aspirations to be a board member (thats it isnt it??) but is largely irrelevant to the majority of club supporters

the majority of us just want a successful club, one thats run professionally and one that has its financial future secure

wow.

That is actually really offensive.

You have managed to portrey a genuine commitment to the principles of democracy, egalitarianism and community involvement as a self interested power grab.

If I thought I had something to offer (far) in the future, I would consider standing.

But at the moment I have too much on my plate and I don't think I am experienced enough to be of great service... and at any rate I wouldn't want to subject myself to constant sh*tbagging by ignorant jerks.

I too want a successful, pecunious and secure community club. I just have a different view from you as to how we best achieve that.

But no, quite obviously its all about the (potential) buffets for me.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

And sit back peeps.

 

[B-dos]

wow.

That is actually really offensive.

i meant no offense mac however that is the way your position is coming across

you said yourself in your earlier post you want the chance for those with aspirations for board membership to have that chance. given your close ties to the club and your insistence that having community board members is the most important thing to you it seemed the logical conclusion

You have managed to portrey a genuine commitment to the principles of democracy, egalitarianism and community involvement as a self interested power grab.

all the principles you mention are provided for in tinklers offer

If I thought I had something to offer (far) in the future, I would consider standing.

But at the moment I have too much on my plate and I don't think I am experienced enough to be of great service... and at any rate I wouldn't want to subject myself to constant sh*tbagging by ignorant jerks.

thats part of the job mac

I too want a successful, pecunious and secure community club. I just have a different view from you as to how we best achieve that.

great. we are on the same page.

im pretty sure the majority of club supporters put community elected board members quite a way down the list or priorities that all

 

[macavity]

i meant no offense mac however that is the way your position is coming across

and you come across as a sycophantic Gordon Gecko wannabe ideologue who is too bedazzled by dollar signs to critically examine anything proposed by a "Captain of Industry".

No offence.

you said yourself in your earlier post you want the chance for those with aspirations for board membership to have that chance. given your close ties to the club and your insistence that having community board members is the most important thing to you it seemed the logical conclusion

Yes - that is what democracy and egalitarianism lead to. People having a meaningful say.

all the principles you mention are provided for in tinklers offer

Poppycock.

You either haven't actually read the offer, or you are lying.

The offer pays lip service to these principles by saying he will "return the club to the community".... by buying it from the community.......

im pretty sure the majority of club supporters put community elected board members quite a way down the list or priorities that all

Most people don't think about that sort of stuff, or about the ramifications.

I do.

Do I deserve to be accused of acting in self interest for wanting to see my club remain part of the community, and remain protected?

I hope we will get to see the best result played out... but sycophantic fawning over Tinkler's money isn't going to help us get there.

 

[Karmawave]

I have no issues with Macca's proposal, because in an ideal world it would be fantastic.

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world, so its hard to get the perfect model we'd all love and there's questions over whether or not it is workable, and if ANY private investor - let alone Tinkler - would ever be agreeable to such a community controlled situation while putting in their hard earned money.

I would guess not, but hey, it can't hurt to try.

 

[macavity]

I have no issues with Macca's proposal, because in an ideal world it would be fantastic.

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world, so its hard to get the perfect model we'd all love and there's questions over whether or not it is workable, and if ANY private investor - let alone Tinkler - would ever be agreeable to such a community controlled situation while putting in their hard earned money.

I would guess not, but hey, it can't hurt to try.

Why not shoot for the stars?

You guys act like I have put forward something based only in wide eyed idealism. It is nothing of the sort.

To clarify an apparent misconception, my proposal includes more control for Tinkler than for the community appointed board members.

In addition to appointing 44% of the board, he is trustee - he controls the purse strings. He holds the whip hand.

If he doesn't agree with the direction of the board, he turns off the money. He turns off the money, the board members won't last long.

Hardly "community controlled".

I would say he is getting a pretty big stick for his money.

He sways one community appointee (or the Real NRL appointee) to his point of view, and he has complete control. Anyone who can't see the benefit in having some sort of check on absolute power doesn't understand a basic fact about absolute power.