Nathan Tinkler withdraws Knights offer

[perverse]

there is absolutely nothing wrong with sitting on the fence at this stage. in fact, i think it's the only truly sensible option left to us until we are given more information.

 

[Allstar Knights]

Delete

 

[Karmawave]

Mr Rob Faraday-Bensley

Can play cricket. Very good player.

 

[Serc]

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.

Yep fair enough that it wasn't necessarily the right thing to do to announce the things they didn't like BEFORE the meeting scheduled for yesterday...however Tinkler, the Herald, McKay and others have been taking pot shots at Tew and Burro a number of times over the past few months...and in some cases have been running their little campaigns for quite a while (with little fairness given to the other side of the story).

I know two wrongs don't make a right, however there is a few more black marks in the copybook for Tinkler than there is for Tew & Burro if we're talking about using the media for the wrong reasons.

 

[perverse]

Can play cricket. Very good player.

i hope he's as sharp with clauses and stipulations as he is with a bat and ball, then.

 

[Serc]

Open letter to Knights fans from Nathan Tinkler
NATHAN TINKLER
22 Feb, 2011 04:00 AM

Dear fellow Knights fan,

I was disappointed yesterday to reluctantly withdraw from negotiations to purchase the Newcastle Knights. This is not just for the many people who have worked tirelessly to present an exciting new future for the club but more importantly, all members and fans.
The integrity of not just the deal, but the Tinkler Sports Group has been challenged.
In response to attempts to diminish the value of our deal, no sporting club in Australia has a standing deal that can deliver them a minimum $10million per year for 10 years. Under our proposal the Newcastle Knights would have received exactly that. Additionally we had proposed to immediately pay out the club’s debt, estimated to be in the vicinity of $4million.
I’m passionate about all things Newcastle, the Hunter and Northern NSW (the region). I have been successful in business and I can think of no greater benefit I can give back to the community than to have a rugby league team we are all proud of and financially secure.
The Newcastle Knights is one of the strongest sporting brands in the region and there is nothing more I would like to see than for them to put their financial difficulties behind them and focus on success on the paddock.
Unfortunately, it is now clear that we will have no further involvement or negotiation with the current board of directors. We have been frustrated in our attempts to reach an amicable outcome on such a significant issue for the club.
It appears the board has lost sight of the key objective of building a winning club.
The Newcastle Knights would have operated as a not-for-profit organisation under the privatisation arrangement and all of the surpluses would have been re-invested into both the Knights and a junior development program.
I have made no secret of the fact that over the years I believe we have lost too many of our local juniors to other clubs. With the input of a proposed Newcastle Rugby League Advisory Board and coaching staff we aimed to remedy that situation.
Our business model would have ensured the Knights would be around for our children and our children’s children and that every rugby league junior in the region only dreams of one thing – playing for the Knights.
Our goal was to return the club to those famous watershed days of 1997 through to 2003 when the Knights never failed to reach the play-offs while developing home grown champions.
In spite of my personal disappointment, as a long-standing supporter of the club I wish the Knights players and coaching staff every success.

Kind regards,

Nathan Tinkler

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...knights-fans-from-nathan-tinkler/2083097.aspx

 

[Serc]

People power forces officials to explain
BY IAN KIRKWOOD
22 Feb, 2011 04:00 AM

AS a revolution, it fell a little flat.
But Lambton man Mark York, who called a meeting of Knights members at the Mark Hotel at Lambton yesterday evening, had more than half the signatures he needed by meeting’s end to get what he wants.
Mr York, who described himself as a businessman and long-term season-ticket holder of the Knights, said he needed 100 signatures to force an extraordinary general meeting of the Knights and its board.
Mr York had posted his intention to hold the meeting on the Newcastle Herald website yesterday. Radio picked up the rallying call and by the time he fronted the crowd and the media last night, he had about 70 people paying attention.
‘‘I am in no way trying to get rid of the board of the Knights,’’ Mr York said.
‘‘I think they’ve done a fantastic job under trying circumstances over quite a number of years. But I do, however, disagree with the way they have gone about the Nathan Tinkler proposal.
‘‘I implore them to reconsider their position until they and the Knights board have a clear view about if this is what the members want or not.’’
Mr York said events seemed to have overtaken him, with the Knights board calling next Monday’s meeting of members.
But he vowed to take his 100 signatures with him, and to deliver it to that meeting.
Knights director Leigh Maughan told the Herald yesterday afternoon he intended to go to the meeting but apparently changed his mind.
Former premiership-winning Knights Tony Butterfield and Stephen Crowe did turn up, and chatted happily to a bevy of fans.
Butterfield said the board had to act in the interests of the club members.
‘‘The club is in a parlous financial situation but if the offer on the table is as the chief executive officer [Steve Burraston] has described then clearly it’s not good enough,’’ Butterfield said.

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...ower-forces-officials-to-explain/2082603.aspx

 

[Karmawave]

" Our business model would have ensured the Knights would be around for our children and our children’s children and that every rugby league junior in the region only dreams of one thing – playing for the Knights.
Our goal was to return the club to those famous watershed days of 1997 through to 2003 when the Knights never failed to reach the play-offs while developing home grown champions." - Nathan Tinkler


I believe the guy.

I've never quite understood why there needed to be this ' minimum commitment ' to spending that the Knights seem to have an issue about anyway.

Anyone who knows Tinkler knows he doesn't do things at half measures. If $15M a season needed to be put into this club, then he'd do it - forget any minimum clauses.

To be honest, I would have been happy with Tinkler simply agreeing to clear our debts ( about $4M ), agreeing that the Knights brand and location does not change, and letting the guy spend whatever he felt was necessary to run the club.

I see no reason why we should doubt his intentions to do what he said above.

Do you think Russell Crowe and Peter Holmes A Court had to offer up a ' minimum spending ' commitment when they purchased South Sydney?

Ummm....

 

[perverse]

Karma - he can sell the club in 3 years, and we can't hold the next owner to the same guarentee. even if you do trust Tinkler, unless certain safeguards are in place, on paper, then all the good intentions in the world are worth nothing. you don't know what is going to transpire with Tinkler or anyone else in the next 36+ months... and unless there are clauses in place to protect certain powers for the membership, we will never get our club back. to borrow the words of roopy, we only get to sell the farm once, we need to do it right. i don't really doubt his short term intentions... but rich businessmen can be very fickle. look at how Tinkler manages Patinack.

if he puts the right things on paper then i have absolutely zero qualms about him owning us, but a distrust for Tinkler is not what this is about. it's about making sure that Tinkler puts his promises in black and white, which is not much to ask, and it's about ensuring our club not just over 10 years, but the next 50 too. we're not playing a f**king game here. this truly is serious business and isn't to be taken lightly or on a "i trust you" basis.

it is NOT much to ask that someone puts their public promises in regards to the bid on the actual proposal. in fact, it goes without saying that it should all be on there and to argue otherwise is folly.

the consideration we have to consider now is who is telling the truth about the proposal, and unless you and your lawyer have read over it, you can't be in a position to comment on that, either. i have my suspicions, you have yours, im sure some of them are similar and im sure others of them have been confirmed through whatever channels you or i may have. regardless, until we know what's on the paper, it's all just uneducated pissing and moaning. we have a he said, she said situation.

 

[Karmawave]

Ok well how's this:-

1. Pay out the debt.

2. Commit to owning the club for a minimum 10 years.

3. Guarantee the Knights remain in Newcastle and the brand remains as is.

4. Agree that if the club was sold at the end of the 10 year period, that point 3 remains in place.


Seriously that would be good enough for me, because I have faith that Tinkler means what he says. He doesn't like running 2nd mate.

I don't get why all of this needs to be so difficult.

I mean seriously, who do we think we are demanding so much? Demanding minimum commitments?

I have never, ever in my life seen any other privatised team - ANYWHERE in the world in ANY other sport, have such clauses as a pre-requisite minimum spending in the future.

Certainly not in EPL, MLB, NBA, NFL or any other bloody privately owned sporting team I can think of.

This ' community ' ownership factor is being far overplayed, and we just all need to let it go.

Have some faith in the bloke, and as long as point 3 remains in place, it surely can't be too much worse than it bloody well is now.

There's your agreement draft. Pitch that to members :lol:

This minimum spending stuff is absolute rubbish - whether he changed his offer or not - to me, it shouldn't have had to be in his offer in the first place. It is simply unheard of in any other sports privatisation transaction - ever.

 

[Alex28]

Anyone who knows Tinkler knows he doesn't do things at half measures. If $15M a season needed to be put into this club, then he'd do it - forget any minimum clauses.

Um...the co-owners and the participants in Supercar Club probably beg to differ.

And as for the minimum clauses, he was the one suggesting it. Don't blame the board for that.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

I just dont know what to think.

Supremely unimpressed with how as others have said Tinklers offer was taking weeks but this trust is pretty much ready to go at a moments notice.

 

[perverse]

i could almost deal with that, Karma. i would prefer there be a safeguard in place to protect our income at the currently hard-fought for level, but the finances worry me far less than the intangibles.

i find it funny that you're happy enough that Tinkler changed the offer, because it shouldn't have been there in the first place. :lol: that's hilarious non-justification there. i think the fact that he changed the offer at all is enough to cause immense skepticism. i agree with you, this shouldn't be hard. it shouldn't be hard to put the exact promises he gave us on paper. not hard at all. very very easy for a man of his resources... yet we have our administration claiming that this is far from the case. i ask you, why? is it because the Knights are lying, or because Tinkler is pulling a swifty with the fine print? not that you will answer it, you do have an artful way of dodging the tricky bits of my posts, such as the way you answered my last post. once again you completely gloss over the fact that there is deception afoot from one, or both parties here.

i will have far more of an issue with Tinkler blowing smoke up our arse than any financial commitment. i would be satisfied if our income was guarenteed to not decrease under his ownership. Burro is telling us we can lose $2mill income a year and he's still sweet, and that's not acceptable to me... once again not so much for Tinkler, but for anyone else who might be our owner in the future, too.

at the end of the day though, you are absolutely correct, the dollars mean far less than other issues with the proposal. if it is proven that Tinklers proposal does indeed deliver what he has promised us, he will get my stamp of approval. if he's promising us 1 thing, but offering something else, then i'm sorry but he's pissing on us and calling it rain. once again, you don't know where the truth lies any more than i do unless you've read the proposal. care to respond to that?

 

[Karmawave]

Um...the co-owners and the participants in Supercar Club probably beg to differ.

And as for the minimum clauses, he was the one suggesting it. Don't blame the board for that.

Owning a sports team he has ties to and a passion for, is far different to a business deal gone wrong mate. I don't think Tinkler quite has the same passion for renting out uber expensive cars to make a buck.

Any concerns are solved by writing in a clause of a minimum term of commitment to ownership.

Like I said, even if Tinkler was a disappointment, it can't be much worse than what we have now.

 

[perverse]

I just dont know what to think.

Supremely unimpressed with how as others have said Tinklers offer was taking weeks but this trust is pretty much ready to go at a moments notice.

the trust proposal has been in development for 8 months or more. Tinkler was initially involved... but he probably got impatient with it or something.

 

[Karmawave]

if he's promising us 1 thing, but offering something else, then i'm sorry but he's pissing on us and calling it rain. once again, you don't know where the truth lies any more than i do unless you've read the proposal. care to respond to that?

I don't really care at all about the proposal, that's the thing, because I seriously think it was completely un-necessary to begin with. Many of the things that were obviously in the proposal if reported accurately in the media, are unheard of in privatisation transactions for sporting teams.

His proposal should have been simply what I outlined earlier. He is committing for so many years, he is committing to clearing our debts, he is committed to keeping the Knights as is in name and location, and he is committed to making our team matter again.

Like I said, that would be enough for me, because I believe he would do whatever it took to ensure we were winners.

Speculating on the proposal and what is changed or what hasn't and who has more integrity blah blah seems pointless to me the more I think about it.


I pointed out in another thread, you don't have to like or trust the owner to have a successful sports team that fans of the team love.

Just ask the New York Yankee fans.

The will to win and knowing the guy has deep pockets would be enough for me.

I respect that its not enough for others, fair enough, but I think there's far too many demands going on that people aren't entitled to demand.

I mean the club acts like its in a position of power - we are $4M in debt using the same business model that will not change once the Patrons Trust is enacted.

Patron Model or not, the appeal of a Tinkler taking over to me, was knowing the guy wanted to win and will bring in a new business model to take over the current flawed one.

If it failed, it failed. But I somehow doubt it would.

It sure can't be much worse than what we have now.

 

[Karmawave]

the trust proposal has been in development for 8 months or more. Tinkler was initially involved... but he probably got impatient with it or something.

Or he realised that even a war chest of trust funds wasn't going to change what the real problem with the club is - the current flawed business model.

 

[Alex28]

Owning a sports team he has ties to and a passion for, is far different to a business deal gone wrong mate. I don't think Tinkler quite has the same passion for renting out uber expensive cars to make a buck.

Any concerns are solved by writing in a clause of a minimum term of commitment to ownership.

Like I said, even if Tinkler was a disappointment, it can't be much worse than what we have now.

I don't disagree with you, however minimum terms and spends aren't going to stop him doing whatever the hell he wants.

He has a track record of committing to things and walking out on them. The Macarthur Coal board, countless horse trainers and owners, the Supercar Club, Dick Johnson Racing...what makes you think we are any different to any of them?

I don't think we are.

What he would like is no minimum spend, no reasonable way for the members to buy the club back, and no one to enforce him to do anything for the club. The changes to the agreement that the board advised the members essentially suggest this - increasing the income streams for the guarantee, taking away the sale agreement and no way of enforcing the agreement put in place.

Do we really just give him the club with no guidelines and just hope he does the right thing?

 

[perverse]

ok, so you're now saying that the proposal and the whole concept of it is unnecessary. you came out of hibernation to eventually reach this point. so basically every discussion had up to this point is now moot, given that you can't seem to articulate anything regarding anything i've asked of you. we should just give the farm to Tinkler in return for our debts paid and cross our fingers. awesome.

do i have that about right?

Karma, i've gotta say i've been vouching for you heaps lately, and you're really disappointing me here. you argument is completely moot, because a proposal HAS been given, and according to the Knights it has changed very significantly. whether you see the need for this process or not, here we are in the middle of it. where do we go from here, mate? everyone knows my piece, we wait until Monday to find out. until now all you've offered is pie in the sky fantasy, which is fine, i get it - you trust Tinkler. i don't, and he's only done harm to his trustworthiness. i don't want to be 3 years down the track, sold to another owner that wants to run us on a shoestring budget like we are now, telling you "i told you so" on this, because it'd just about break my heart for it all to go down that way. all i ask is that Tinkler offers safeguards against that scenario. if he plans to own the club for 10 years, commit on paper to 10 years, not 2 like the Knights are claiming. i mean... i'm not going to go over these same points again, they are simply done to death now.

i can't believe you don't want the facts before you make a decision. i've always considered you smarter than that.

 

[macavity]

I think people have been remembering karma through rose-coloured glasses.

nothing but ill thought out vitriol and supposition from him here.

the facts are plain for all to see.

The board have consistently said they want to work towards the best possible outcome. fact.

The proposal has not been carried through with. rather, it was fundamentally and unilaterally changed. fact. Tinkler admits it. This is not in dispute.

Tinkler has given insufficient time to assess the documentation. fact.

Tinkler has cancelled meetings and walked away. fact.

how can one party be the one unilaterally changing things, giving ultimatums, refusing to explain themselves or negotiate - and the other party be at fault?

I think people need to get over their irrational hatred of the board and management, stop being blinded by ridiculous and untrue dollar figures, and look at the facts.

the facts don't lie.