What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Nathan Tinkler relinquishes ownership of the Newcastle Knights

Alex28

Coach
Messages
12,001
The only thing I fear for is if Tinkler has managed to find a way to not give up the 10 mill.

It's all in a contract - he defaults, the members buy the club back, he loses the $10M.

He doesn't get to keep the cash. It's all in a contract. The cash doesn't go to him without the members club saying so, and there is NO chance of that happening.
 

Nightward

Juniors
Messages
874
I dunno if it's that clear-cut.

If he files for bankruptcy (might not, don't know all the details) then the Knights will be added to a list of creditors that the courts will divvy up whatever funds of Tinklers' they can access based on who is owed what amount of money.

Alternatively, he might challenge the contract in court to consolidate his assets, in which case whoever has the best lawyers wins.

Either way, we're talking about a guy who had a thousand million dollars. It boggles the mind to imagine how so much of that has just evaporated, especially since the Knights were depending on his support.
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,708
That would still leave ~333 million dollars. Which whilst less OMGWTF than one thousand million, is still a massively huge amount of money.

No because it's very likely he had much more than 333 million dollars in debt. His debt would have been manageable when the coal price peaked but it crashed and all of a sudden his debt was bigger than his assets and things like paying footy players regularly became harder to do.

You can have billions in assets and appear to be an extremely rich man but outsiders rarely know how much debt these super wealthy are in. Often in real terms they're poorer than the minimum wage worker with 0 debt and $5000 cash in the bank.
 

coolsteve

Juniors
Messages
1,555
No because it's very likely he had much more than 333 million dollars in debt. His debt would have been manageable when the coal price peaked but it crashed and all of a sudden his debt was bigger than his assets and things like paying footy players regularly became harder to do.

You can have billions in assets and appear to be an extremely rich man but outsiders rarely know how much debt these super wealthy are in. Often in real terms they're poorer than the minimum wage worker with 0 debt and $5000 cash in the bank.
Bunniesman= financial guru
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,708
Have checked and haven't noticed this article posted yet:

NATHAN Tinkler has been issued with an ultimatum to walk away from the Newcastle Knights or risk the club’s ownership battle being destined for the courts.

After eight weeks of failed peace talks with the NRL, the Knights Members Club has lost patience with the Hunter Sports Group.

Tinkler has been given until the end of this week to sign a $10.52 million bank guarantee which allows the Members Club to start the process of buying the club back for $1.

If Tinkler fails to do so, then the Knights are headed for the courts in an ownership battle guaranteed to be very ugly and very public.

“We’re calling on the Hunter Sports Group to honour their obligations to the club and community by transferring the assets, including the bank guarantee,” Members Club chairman Nick Dan said.

“We want it to be easy for the players and staff to simply worry about their jobs. It would also be easier for the NRL if they could just worry about running the game rather than worrying about an individual club.”

The tipping point for the NRL came last Friday when it emerged super coach Wayne Bennett was among a group of 20 staff and players who have not been paid monthly wages.

Two days earlier, Tinkler supposedly spent $150 million to purchase a mine in Queensland. It makes the failure to pay Bennett, other staff and players astounding.
The future of Bennett at Newcastle is now a work in progress, with his four-year contract signed with HSG rather than the Knights. So if Tinkler is forced out, the supercoach will have to re-negotiate the terms of the final 18 months of his contract under the club’s new structure.

The Sunday Telegraph has spoken to a number of Newcastle insiders who are fuming with Tinkler, but under the HSG regime every employee at the club is effectively forbidden from speaking out against the ownership publicly.

Thankfully, former Newcastle premiership winner and media personality Matty Johns isn’t gagged by the same sort of instructions.

Johns told The Sunday Telegraph: “It’s something that has got to be addressed because there have been rumours going on for the entire season about late payments and players not being paid.

“That affects performance. These latest developments have clearly proven there are players not being paid. That being the case, is it any wonder the team is not performing?”

We asked Johns specifically about the form of Queensland player Darius Boyd, the fullback who is owed a $200,000 third-party sponsorship.

“I’ve heard all the stories about Darius being owed money,” Johns said.

“I’ve heard all the stories about third-party payments, but I don’t know what the facts of the matter are because people won’t speak.

“People are afraid to talk about it.

“The other night on Peter Sterling’s ‘Sterlo’ program there was a package of Darius’ play that indicated to me something is very, very wrong. They weren’t the actions of a world-class player.”

Luckily for the Knights, the Westpac bank has guaranteed it will honour the $10.52 million bank cheque which is currently sitting in a joint account between HSG and the Knights Members Club.

The issue for the Knights Members and the club’s legion of supporters is that the cheque needs to signed by Tinkler’s right-hand man Troy Palmer in order for the members to be able to draw on the funds.

There has been talk over the past two months the Newcastle Knights debt could be as high as $18 or even $20 million.

Under the terms of the private ownership contract Tinkler signed when HSG took over in 2011, if the Members Club exercises its right to buy the club back for $1, it comes debt-free.

Will Tinkler be prepared to walk away with an $18 million bill? It’s unlikely.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...atience-with-hsg/story-fni3gf5j-1226921271131

Talk of courts is scary. Apparently if Tinkler walks away now he has to pay 18 mill in debt as well as the 10 mill guarantee. This could take months and months to solve in the courts.
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,708
I just can not see how we can be $18 Million in debt...

How open and transparent have the Knights books been since Tinkler took over? Has Tinkler been putting as much cash into the club as he promised? Is that jersey sponsorship bringing in any money? Lots of questions that can explain any potential debt.

The Knights should have no long term problem as long as the paperwork was done right. Any debt there is should be taken care of by Tinkler as he leaves the club. But the process to get to that point could be long and ugly and complicated in a worst case scenario where he stubbornly digs in and fights.
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,708
It's very weird. Part of me is worried that Tinkler is somehow transferring his other debts onto the knights.

Well if the media reports are right then he still is obliged to eliminate that debt in the event of him giving up the Knights. I don't see how transferring any debt to the Knights helps him when he is contractually forced to not leave any when he leaves.
 

Mr Spock!

Referee
Messages
22,502
Well if the media reports are right then he still is obliged to eliminate that debt in the event of him giving up the Knights. I don't see how transferring any debt to the Knights helps him when he is contractually forced to not leave any when he leaves.

Doesn't he have a habit of opening a corporation and letting it go bankrupt.

eg Patinack, Mulsanne
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,708
Doesn't he have a habit of opening a corporation and letting it go bankrupt.

eg Patinack, Mulsanne

But unlike other companies there is a path mapped out for another entity to take over the Knights and when they do they can potentially come at him for failing to meet his obligations.

But who knows, worst case scenario he does find a way to get out without paying up and the NRL takes care of the debt and effectively takes over the operation themselves.

They're lucky they're not a Sydney club so they'll get NRL money without being at risk of relocation.
 

Mr Spock!

Referee
Messages
22,502
But unlike other companies there is a path mapped out for another entity to take over the Knights and when they do they can potentially come at him for failing to meet his obligations.

But who knows, worst case scenario he does find a way to get out without paying up and the NRL takes care of the debt and effectively takes over the operation themselves.

They're lucky they're not a Sydney club so they'll get NRL money without being at risk of relocation.

Maybe.

History shows he'd just wind up HSG if he got into trouble.
 

BunniesMan

Immortal
Messages
33,708
Maybe.

History shows he'd just wind up HSG if he got into trouble.

I think important lessons can be learned from this. I don't think the NRL should let easily disposable companies be the owners of clubs. If private owners want to take over a club they should have to take it over personally with their name on the paperwork. And not same company name that can be killed at the earliest inconvenience.
 
Messages
3,000
No because it's very likely he had much more than 333 million dollars in debt. His debt would have been manageable when the coal price peaked but it crashed and all of a sudden his debt was bigger than his assets and things like paying footy players regularly became harder to do.

You can have billions in assets and appear to be an extremely rich man but outsiders rarely know how much debt these super wealthy are in. Often in real terms they're poorer than the minimum wage worker with 0 debt and $5000 cash in the bank.

Yes bunniesman a lot of billionaires have net assets of $5k. This would have to be up there with the stupidest comment you have ever made
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,273
When it was clear this was going to happen in 2012/13 the "official" line was, "Yeh, he is a crook but at least he cleared our debts"

Now they are 18M in the hole, even with the 10M BG, it's bad news city.
 
Top