Nathan Tinkler relinquishes ownership of the Newcastle Knights

[kmav23]

Selling Patinack not only gives Tinkler a large lump sum of about 200 million dollars but he also saves millions upon millions every month now he no longer has to invest into it. It puts more money into the Knights and Jets pockets plus into his other business ventures. Anyone who thinks this is his empire further crumbling is geniused, it's smart, he's making nothing from Patinack and he no longer lives nearby to manage it so why would he continue to lose millions.

Once again, Tinkler is not going bankrupt and what happens outside of the Knights and HSG has nothing to do with Rugby League or any Rugby League fan who has nothing better to do than spend 24/7 googling Tinkler articles.

he owes over 700 million in debt with interest on top

 

[rnb11]

How the f**k would you know, f**k off

 

[kmav23]

How the f**k would you know, f**k off

http://m.perthnow.com.au/business/n...lsanne-resources/story-fndgoy35-1226597048741

"Mr Tinkler's companies are weighed down with debt. His stake in Whitehaven Coal, worth $500 million is reportedly securing a $700 million loan."

 

[kmav23]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/ow...ys-wayne-bennett/story-fndv33vy-1226611241979

WAYNE Bennett says he is convinced owner Nathan Tinkler is committed to the Knights despite Tinkler's $250 million Patinack Farm horseracing operation being on the market.

The latest financial setback for Tinkler raised fresh concerns the Knights could also be sold as part of the mining magnate's road to financial recovery.

Bennett's tenure at the Knights was under the microscope again last week when the Broncos' only premiership-winning coach was linked with a return to Red Hill to replace Anthony Griffin next season.

Much of the speculation surrounding Bennett's future has stemmed from Tinkler's financial struggles and the potential ramifications should he fail to honour contracts with the coach and other Knights employees.

But Bennett last night said Tinkler's offloading of Patinack Farm would not result in Tinkler, or himself, walking away from the Knights.

"It's got no impact on us whatsoever, it has nothing to do with us," Bennett said.

"It's one part of his business. It's like him selling a coal mine. Why should that impact on the Knights?

"Nathan is a very good communicator and I obviously know what is going on.

"It won't affect me or the Knights."

The future of the Knights first surfaced last year when Tinkler's empire hit rough waters after a sharp drop in coal prices.

The coal entrepreneur initially provided a $20 million bank guarantee in the event he abandoned the Knights, although on January 1 that figure, which would be payable to a Knights members' group with which to run the NRL club, was reduced to $10.3 million.

Tinkler said the sale of Patinack Farm would allow him to focus on his "core operations, spanning resources, port and rail infrastructure and property".

There was no mention of the Knights.

It appears Bennett, who is contracted to Newcastle until the end of 2015, will honour his Knights deal, regardless of the rumours of a return to Red Hill.

"I don't want to comment on the Broncos," Bennett said.

"There is a (Knights) bank guarantee in place. The licence he has is for the next 10 years, and that bank guarantee ($10.3m) remains in place.

"If Nathan did walk away, and I'm not saying he is, we would have $10 million to start again, so we're not doing too badly."

Bennett, 63, recently told News Limited Tinkler did not meddle in his coaching and he had no plans to retire.

"I have no idea how long I will go, but right now I want to coach," he said.

"Maybe next year I will wake up and not want to coach so I don't worry about it."

Football Federation Australia is not concerned about the future of the Tinkler-owned Newcastle Jets despite the collapse of Patinack Farm.

The Jets, who failed last week to make the A-League finals, are in Tinkler's Hunter Sports Group stable, which is run separately to his horse-racing interests.

 

[coolsteve]

there`s that itch again, farkin flea

 

[betcats]

Reaching? Hardly. Of course the club would be "fine" in the sense that it would survive. But it would be in a completely f**ked position. It couldn't just go back to how it was before Tinkler came on board. There are a lot of high profile staff (i.e. Bennett) on the books that the club couldn't afford under the member's ownership model. What happens then? The club loses all of its staff and players, or sends itself further bust trying to pay them.

The whole argument is ridiculous anyway. Tinkler is going nowhere. This whole thread is just fuelled by a couple of individuals hoping he goes bust.

Thats funny, I always thought "Fine" meant that they wouldnt be f**ked.

I shall have to work on my interpretations. :crazy:

 

[Alex28]

he owes over 700 million in debt with interest on top

Oh Kmav...

http://www.news.com.au/business/companies/tinkler-back-in-court/story-fnda1bsz-1226598094835

EMBATTLED coal baron Nathan Tinkler has told a court the debts of his Tinkler Group are about $500 million.
The detail emerged as he appeared before the NSW Supreme Court for a second day of questioning about his finances and the collapse of his mining company Mulsanne Resources.

Under questioning from counsel for Mulsanne's liquidators, Robert Newlinds, SC, Mr Tinkler was asked about the value of shares in his main asset, Whitehaven Coal, and the total debts of Tinkler Group.

While he did not give an answer about the value of his Whitehaven shares, Mr Tinkler said the total debts of Tinkler Group were "around $500 million".

Mulsanne was put into liquidation late last year after failing to pay for a $28.4 million stake in junior coal miner Blackwood Corporation. Mr Tinkler told the court today he did not approach "normal banks" to raise funds for the looming $28.4 million debt because they did not understand his business model.

"Its just out of the question for me to deal with normal banks," he said. "They don't understand how I create wealth."

Mr Tinkler previously told the court he had three properties worth nearly $20 million in total which could have been used for security in the Blackwood share purchase.

However Mr Tinkler told Mr Newlinds that he was unsure if valuations on the houses were ever done.

The court also heard Mr Tinkler received an extension on the deadline to settle the Blackwood debt and that he had been in discussions with Noble Group director Will Randall about the sale of a coal royalty to Noble to help provide funds.

Mr Tinkler said he travelled to New York after the initial deadline for the debt had passed for talks with financiers because he was "starting to lose faith" in Noble buying his royalty. The court has heard that the sale of the multi-million dollar royalty from the Middlemount mine in Queensland was central to Mr Tinkler's plan to fund the Blackwood deal.

However he has denied falling out with a former business partner, Matthew Higgins, who is suing him over the coal royalty.

Mr Higgins sued Mr Tinkler in December 2012 over a dispute about the distribution of the royalty. But Mr Tinkler today played down any suggestion of a rift with Mr Higgins by revealing the pair had breakfast together that morning.

He said despite not having agreement from Noble to buy the royalty, or agreement from Mr Higgins to sell his share to Noble, he was "absolutely" confident the deal could proceed with just three days to the deadline.

"We've pulled deals together in that sort of timeline previously so I was pretty relaxed," Mr Tinkler said.

2 weeks ago you quoted the above article saying it was $500 Million. Now it's $700 Million?

Stop talking shit!

 

[BunniesMan]

Tinklers fanboys will be proven to be on the wrong side of history before long.

 

[Alex28]

Nothing to do with being a fanboy. More highlighting Kmav's glaring inaccuracies.

But what is a couple of hundred mil any way...

What it could mean is reducing his debt by $200 Million (unlikely, however we've been pandering to Kmav's inaccuracies so why not all of us) from $500 Million (as stated under oath, which I'll use as a reference over one of Kmav's) to $300 Million with an asset worth around $550 Million. His position still isn't great, but also not as bad as it could be either...

 

[my2centsworth]

Oh Kmav...




2 weeks ago you quoted the above article saying it was $500 Million. Now it's $700 Million?

Stop talking shit!

Is this the same court proceedings that he prefaced every answer with "privilege" so that the transcripts can not be used against him in future criminal cases ? :sarcasm:

 

[Alex28]

His quoting of $500 Million is worth more than Kmav's guess of $700 Million in my opinion.

I'm sure Tinky's legal advice was sound!

 

[Alex28]

Tax is paid people. I'm sure a collective sigh of relief from the forum will follow...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/tink...-to-stave-off-liquidation-20130405-2hau9.html

 

[Cletus]

Tax is paid people. I'm sure a collective sigh of relief from the forum will follow...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/tink...-to-stave-off-liquidation-20130405-2hau9.html

If you read the article it says "all but one" of the companies have paid their debt, without saying which company still hasn't paid. So HSG still may not have paid up 3 months after they promised they would. I'm sure Tinks will be able to pay when he sells his horse empire for 20% of what he paid for it.

 

[eozsmiles]

Selling Patinack not only gives Tinkler a large lump sum of about 200 million dollars but he also saves millions upon millions every month now he no longer has to invest into it. It puts more money into the Knights and Jets pockets plus into his other business ventures. Anyone who thinks this is his empire further crumbling is geniused, it's smart, he's making nothing from Patinack and he no longer lives nearby to manage it so why would he continue to lose millions.

Once again, Tinkler is not going bankrupt and what happens outside of the Knights and HSG has nothing to do with Rugby League or any Rugby League fan who has nothing better to do than spend 24/7 googling Tinkler articles.

He won't get $200 million for the farm. $100-$120 million is a more accurate assessment. The difference is about 10-15% of his total debt.

The money he saves from selling Patinack will be used to service loans and pay creditors. It won't be pumped into his footy teams.

His empire may not be crumbling in your view, but it currently worth less than ever with shares in Whitehaven (his main asset) dropping around 66% of their value since opening. His empire is now worth less than it owes.

I don't know if he is going broke but he owes a hell of a lot more than he has got.

 

[blaza88z]

137 pages full of financial advisor's giving us the run down

f**k me, you merkins have too much time

 

[rnb11]

He won't get $200 million for the farm. $100-$120 million is a more accurate assessment. The difference is about 10-15% of his total debt.

The money he saves from selling Patinack will be used to service loans and pay creditors. It won't be pumped into his footy teams.

His empire may not be crumbling in your view, but it currently worth less than ever with shares in Whitehaven (his main asset) dropping around 66% of their value since opening. His empire is now worth less than it owes.

I don't know if he is going broke but he owes a hell of a lot more than he has got.

Here we have another accountant of Tinkler's telling everyone exactly how much money he has, what he owes and what he plans on doing with his cash.

Why are you guys so obsessed over him and his money, I just don't get why you'd even bother trying to pretend to know all his financial endeavors and position. He isn't getting involved with the NRL or even the Knights, all he does is give the Knights money, what's so bad about that?

Find another hobby in your spare time because this Tinkler obsession isn't normal.

 

[Sydney Knight]

We were told that Tinkler had more debt than assets when Whitehaven was 3.60 a share. It is now $1.90 and he still hasn't been sold up. Maybe he has other substantial assets. Banks don't lend unless they have security and they certainly wouldn't be lending 100% or even 60% against a resource stock.

 

[my2centsworth]

We were told that Tinkler had more debt than assets when Whitehaven was 3.60 a share. It is now $1.90 and he still hasn't been sold up. Maybe he has other substantial assets. Banks don't lend unless they have security and they certainly wouldn't be lending 100% or even 60% against a resource stock.

Didn't he say that none of the traditional banks had lent him money as they didn't understand his wealth creation models ?
Farallon is the major lender and probably charging rates higher than the local Ah Long.

 

[Munky]

Borrow a million dollars and the bank owns you.

Borrow a billion dollars and you own the bank.

His creditors I imagine are unlikely to want to write off his loan deficit as a bad debt.

 

[redvscotty]

ITT: Knights fans having meltdowns on a daily basis because people are picking on Tinky Winky.