If that is true the bid was doomed from the start. No organisation can assess a takeover bid in 4 days. You could never ever do your due diligence in that time. Absurd.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...er-to-prosper-says-gallop-20110221-1b2jy.htmlNewcastle don't need Tinkler to prosper, says Gallop
February 22, 2011
NRL chief executive David Gallop has no fears over the financial future of Newcastle despite mining magnate Nathan Tinkler withdrawing his $100 million offer to buy the club.
Gallop, speaking before the Knights made an official comment on the scrapped deal, said the club was in a position to prosper even without Tinkler's support.
''The Knights are going into a new stadium, they are a big part of the community up there, so this isn't something where we would be suggesting that this has put them in any financial trouble,'' he said.
A frustrated Tinkler yesterday morning took his offer off the table before a proposed meeting with Knights chief executive Steve Burraston and chairman Rob Tew later in the day, which had been scheduled in a bid to resolve ongoing differences. Asked whether he was disappointed by the prospect of someone with Tinkler's wealth walking away from rugby league, Gallop said: ''Obviously anyone with deep pockets who wants to get involved in rugby league has got a certain attraction to us, but whether that is a deal that is going to tick all the boxes for the Knights is not for us to say.
''At this stage, it's very much been an issue between the Tinkler group and the Knights, obviously the detail was being worked through.
''We are not forcing private ownership on any of our clubs. It's obviously something the game embraced a long time ago and it's been successful by and large It's a wait and see at this stage for us.''
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...oard-would-accept-censure-20110221-1b2jw.htmlTew says board would accept censure
Robert Dillon
February 22, 2011
KNIGHTS chairman Rob Tew said he would accept without complaint a vote of no-confidence in the club's board of directors if members objected to the handling of negotiations with Nathan Tinkler.
Tinkler withdrew his offer to privatise the embattled club after Knights officials baulked at presenting it to members. The Knights had initially given Tinkler's plans in-principle approval on January 19.
If the final draft had received a positive response, the board would have called an extraordinary meeting to allow members to vote on the takeover. A 75 per cent majority is needed for such constitutional change.
Despite yesterday's breakdown in negotiations, members can override the board decision and instruct the club to resume talks with Tinkler.
The first step would be to present Knights management with the signatures of 100 members requesting an extraordinary meeting to debate the issue. At that meeting, disgruntled members would be able to table a vote of no-confidence.
If the vote of no-confidence was upheld, members would then elect a new board and instruct them to re-open privatisation talks with Tinkler.
The first rumblings of a possible rebellion occurred last night when more than 50 signatories were enlisted during an impromptu members' meeting at a Lambton hotel.
The Knights' directors hope to appease members with an information session, at which they will discuss a proposed patron's trust that they say will provide financial stability.
Asked if he hoped members would object to the board's stance, Tinkler replied: ''Perhaps. I'm not that familiar with their constitution. If the members' view is that this offer was attractive and should be accepted there are paths for members to take.''
Tinkler accused Knights officials of ''self-interest''. Chief executive Steve Burraston rejected the comments.
''That is just misinformation that's put out there,'' Burraston said.
''Firstly, our directors have their own businesses to run. They don't get paid for being on the Knights' board, so why would they want to preserve zero payment and cop the pressure and abuse that they've received in recent times? As far as myself goes, it's never been about me retaining my job it's about getting the right deal for the Newcastle Knights, and if that costs me my job, so be it.''
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...w-burraston-for-aborted-takeover/2082646.aspxTinkler blames Tew, Burraston for aborted takeover
BY JAMES GARDINER
22 Feb, 2011 04:00 AM
A SEETHING Nathan Tinkler has accused Knights chairman Rob Tew and chief executive Steve Burraston of acting in self-interest and ruled out further dealings with the NRL club under the present management.
Tew and Burraston rejected Tinkler’s assertions and said they had acted in the best interests of members in seeking an acceptable buyout deal.
Frustrated after three months of negotiations, Tinkler withdrew his deal to take over the club and launched a stinging attack on its management yesterday.
The 34-year-old tycoon told the Newcastle Herald the only way he would reopen talks was under a new board.
‘‘We have been working on this for three months and we are still at the same point we were three months ago,’’ Tinkler said.
‘‘You can only bang your head against the wall for so long. Life goes on. They had their chance.
‘‘People say [the club] has to be in community hands.
‘‘Let me tell you it is not a community club at the moment. It is in the hands of two men, Steve Burraston and Robbie Tew.
‘‘It is a two-man show. The Newcastle Knights belong to Robbie Tew and Steve Burraston.
‘‘They are not capable of closing this deal. That is my frustration. The consequence of that is to say, ‘That’s enough; we are not going to get there.’
‘‘If something transpires and there is a new Knights board, I would be more than happy to talk.’’
According to the Knights’ constitution, the signatures of at least 100 members are required to call a extraordinary general meeting to move a vote of no-confidence in the club’s board of directors.
‘‘We are not going to get there with this board, with these guys; there is too much self-interest involved,’’ Tinkler said.
‘‘If this was about the community, you would look at the commercial terms and say, ‘$10million for 10years, this is a pretty super deal.’
‘‘These guys don’t recognise commercial terms; they are only worried about their jobs, I think.’’
Tinkler said the Knights had been poorly advised about his offer.
‘‘It is just very, very frustrating,’’ he said.
‘‘Like it or not, there are millions of dollars at stake for the community in this deal. They should be better advised than what they are.’’
Tew and Burraston rejected Tinkler’s assertions.
Tew pointed to the fact that board members were not paid.
‘‘I have no pecuniary interests in a particular outcome here,’’ he said.
‘‘The easy thing to do would have been to move on and hand it over.
‘‘The hard thing to do is to represent the best interests of this club and the membership and represent the best interests of this community.’’
Burraston is on salary but said he had no influence over the board.
Tinkler said he had shaken hands and thought, ‘‘We are there, probably half a dozen times’’ in the past three months.
‘‘Then each time they go away and come back with more claims that frustrate you,’’ he said.
Tinkler said the toughest thing was what he considered a lack of respect.
‘‘The fact that these guys must think, ‘I’m dealing with this young bloke who will pay anything.’ That is ridiculous.
‘‘Guaranteeing $10million a year for a football club, that was my passion for the community and wanting Newcastle to go forward.
‘‘They are waiting for another miracle. Good luck with that.
‘‘I’d rather make things happen than sit and hope.’’
Though a long-time supporter of the Knights, Tinkler said he would have no problems cutting ties with the club.
‘‘There are plenty of other charities in Newcastle that this money can be used for and I don’t think they will be as near as hard to deal with,’’ he said.
‘‘That is what we are talking about: the club is a charity; it is not a viable concern. It has never made money in its 23 years.
‘‘For the last couple of years I have rolled a bit of my loan over as sponsorship so they can claim they are making a profit.
‘‘I have done that because the club is important to the community and I value their existence. It has got to the point where the club is going to forever struggle and I didn’t want that to be the case.’’
Tinkler, who is worth an estimated $610million, said the breakdown of the Knights deal would not affect his plans to revive a Newcastle team in the National Basketball League and bring other major sports to the region.
‘‘It’s business as usual,’’ he said.
‘‘We have the Jets and are enjoying that and busily getting a squad together for next season.
‘‘It’s full steam ahead. It doesn’t mean we are any less likely to try and get a basketball franchise or get a netball team here.
‘‘We are no less committed to the community. We go where we are wanted. Surfest, those guys were in trouble, we were happy to help [with a five-year $300,000 lifeline].’’
Tinkler has lent the Knights money in the past to keep them afloat and said he intended to call in a $500,000 outstanding debt.
The Jets would pursue $250,000 in compensation from a motocross event that forced them to move an A-League game to Port Macquarie.
‘‘You guys don’t want my offer, you don’t need my money: give it back to me,’’ Tinkler said.
‘‘You can’t put your hand out and tell me you need my support and then bite the hand that feeds.
‘‘If you don’t want the support, OK, the support is not there.
‘‘You have rejected my offer. You can’t look generosity in the eye and tell it to go away and then say we really need it, give me some money.
‘‘It started out as $750,000 and I rolled some of it into sponsorship a couple of years and another year I took a sponsorship and put Patinack Farm on the jersey.
‘‘They are playing me as a desperate buyer, that I am desperate to buy the Knights.
‘‘That is not the case. I never have been. The only reason it has transpired into this is because they are broke again and they asked me to put more money in.
‘‘I said, ‘Guys, I can’t keep doing this, putting half a million or $750,000 in the club at a time because you can’t get out of your own way to make sure things are managed properly.’
‘‘That is where we were again and that is what triggered the conversations about privatisation.
‘‘The loan was payable two years ago. It has been my goodwill towards the club that it has sat there.’’
The Knights unveiled a ‘‘patrons’ trust’’ model, which they say guarantees $1.5million a year for four years.
Burraston said the club would be happy to pay the money owing to Tinkler immediately.
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/reaction-knights-dropped-the-ball/2082611.aspxReaction: Knights dropped the ball
BY MARTIN DINNEEN AND NEIL GOFFET
22 Feb, 2011 04:00 AM
Minister for the Hunter Jodi McKay was scathing of the Newcastle Knights board and its reticence to move forward on Nathan Tinklers privatisation offer, after the mining magnate withdrew it yesterday. I am disappointed but not surprised, she said. This is the standard thing you get when dealing with the Knights. There is no intention to reach an outcome.
Ms McKay said club members needed to meet as soon as possible, not only to decide on the viability of Tinklers offer if it is still available but the future of the current Knights board.
This decision is for the members to make and not for six people sitting around a table, she said.
Ms McKay said her dealings with the Knights on a political level had left her doubtful the board would welcome any changes to brighten the club s future.
Its like dealing with a ball of wool, it is impossible to unravel it, she said.
Head of the Knights fan organisation, The Crusade, Shane Spruce expressed dismay and disappointment at the latest revelation in the Tinkler buyout offer but said he supported the besieged board.
I can hear the pitchforks being readied and the torches lit for the board but they are charged with the responsibility of ensuring the best for the club, he said.
It is their role to question the details.
He said he fully supported the boards efforts to make sure the details of the deal were clear and in the best interests of the members.
Mr Spruce said the public should be aware that privatisation of a football club was a major move and a months deliberation was insignificant in the context of the deal.
He said Mr Tinklers decision to walk away when the Knights highlighted some changes in the original deal should be viewed critically.
I am really disappointed we had this bright opportunity and been pulled away with no reason, he said.
Former Knights player and official Stephen Crowe said he could not fathom why such an attractive deal for the Knights had been allowed to fall apart.
I am a passionate supporter of this football club and today I am totally deflated, he said.
It takes more than a proud history and a strong culture to win premierships in the modern NRL.
It takes serious financial resources and Im confident the Tinkler Group is committed to providing it.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that this deal was not done, and Im sure thats a view shared by most of those with any real stake in the club.
John Laut, president of the Once-a-Knight Old Boys Club which would have had representation on an advisory board under a Tinkler-run club, said he would not comment until he met with his committee tonight where the deal would be a focus.
That is just a scheduled meeting, he said.
Newcastle lord mayor John Tate said he was disappointed the offer had been withdrawn but did not seek to lay blame on either party.
I dont know if there is really anyone to blame, he said. These things take time and I think the Knights management wanted to get the thing right.
I would expect the board of the Knights to fulfil their duties and it is not something you can jump in to and rush.
Foundation Knights sponsor NIB could withdraw its lucrative arrangement with the cash-strapped NRL club.
NIB managing director and former Knights board member Mark Fitzgibbon could not believe the deal had broken down.
Im speechless, he said. As a company, we want the club to prosper and it was our judgment that under the privatisation deal, the club would only prosper.
It certainly wont surprise me to see the members try to get some people off the board.
We have just renewed our sponsorship for the 2011 season and wed be seriously reviewing that if nothing changes at the Knights next year.
NIBs response came after ground naming rights sponsor EnergyAustralia (now Ausgrid) said it would not renew its sponsorship arrangement when the existing deal expires at the end of this year.
Major sponsor Coal & Allied did not return calls from the Newcastle Herald yesterday.
The Herald is also one of the Knights key sponsors and general manager Julie Ainsworth expressed disappointment with the decision.
This is another opportunity lost for Newcastle to showcase itself in a positive light, Ms Ainsworth said.
Offers of this magnitude do not come along every day.
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...d-have-been-ironed-out-solicitor/2082538.aspxConcerns should have been ironed out: solicitor
BY GREG RAY
22 Feb, 2011 04:00 AM
It was disappointing a deal had not been reached between the Newcastle Knights and would-be club buyer Nathan Tinkler, Knights solicitor Rob Faraday-Bensley said yesterday.
Mr Faraday-Bensley, who has been involved in negotiations between the parties, said the in-principle deal Mr Tinkler first proposed had the support of the clubs board of directors.
But the final draft of three interlocking agreements, which Mr Tinklers Sydney law firm presented to the club last week, left some serious questions that made it impossible for directors to unanimously endorse to club members, Mr Faraday-Bensley said.
Mr Tinkler had demanded that the Knights directors unanimously endorse the agreements, but Mr Faraday-Bensley said he had advised directors of some potential issues relating to liability, to the definition of sponsorship value and to club members ability to access bank guarantees if that ever became necessary.
It isnt my role to comment on the commercial viability of any proposed deals, but it is my job to advise the directors on the legal position they and club members might find themselves in, he said.
Mr Faraday-Bensley said he was disappointed when Mr Tinkler took his offer off the table.
We were engaged in negotiations, and it is always the case that negotiations involve differences of opinion and give and take. We had hoped and expected to finalise some issues and put the directors in a position where they could comfortably put the deal in front of the members.
If we could have achieved an agreement that we could agree clearly reflected the offer as it was first put by Mr Tinkler, then I think the directors would have been very happy.
Mr Faraday-Bensley said there was a major perceived difference between the interpretation of directors liability as expressed in the three proposed agreements as presented by Mr Tinkler.
Maybe it was just a drafting issue but, if so, it should have been a simple matter to fix.
The directors should not have to be concerned about the future emergence of possible unforeseen liabilities relating to past events, he said.
Mr Faraday-Bensley also queried the definition of sponsorship revenue, saying the Knights directors believed it had expanded since Mr Tinklers first proposal.
It could be argued the new definition now covers revenue from sources that currently provide the Knights with more than $10million a year, arguably making the value of the guarantee being offered potentially zero, he said.
Both sides should have had a meeting on Monday afternoon and ironed out these concerns.
before that, though, and agreement on what the proposal actually states must be reached. we can't get out pitchforks and torches out until we have the facts. we can't act until we know what it is we are acting on.
Yup
It's why I haven't posted toooo much on the situation so far, I think we all want to know what the facts are behind all this...I sincerely hope this happens, and we somehow don't get bogged down in a 'my word vs yours' scenario.
Head of the Knights fan organisation, The Crusade, Shane Spruce expressed dismay and disappointment at the latest revelation in the Tinkler buyout offer but said he supported the besieged board.
I can hear the pitchforks being readied and the torches lit for the board but they are charged with the responsibility of ensuring the best for the club, he said.
At the end of the day no matter what Burro does atleast Macavity will still love him, who said the age of free love is dead?
Most do.And I will always think you are a moron.
Same here, I can't quite decide what I think of the issueI (like most people) am stuck in the middle in this situation. I back the board with questioning Tinkler about these holes in his newer draft, but by pissing him off in front of the media wasn't the way to go about it IMO.
But i'm not going approve of Tinkler untill I see a "by back the club" offer back in.