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 withdraws Knights offer

perverse

Referee
Messages
26,505
i agree with all of those facts, but i don't necessarily know exactly what those facts mean yet, either. the only one i find unacceptable under any scenario is the lack of time he has given the Knights to evaluate the final proposal. the rest mean nothing without proper, unbiased context.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,937
It is almost as though Tinkler started with a high offer and wanted to negotiate down. How does the board in all good faith go to the members and say "He promised all these things, but now he wants to offer about 10% of what he offered, so how about you accept this?"

He sucked the average member in with the very things that Karma is suggesting is ridiculous that should be demanded. I doubt the watered down offer would have been accepted by 75% of the membership any way.

The members of this club love the club. It took a ridiculous monetary figure to get them on board. Without it he wouldn't have got a look in.
 

Karmawave

Bench
Messages
4,950
I agree Perverse that both sides have been a massive letdown.

My thoughts on the matter have changed the more i've thought about it , so yes, my angle has changed on the whole thing.

None of us are privy to the reasons Tinkler made the minimum commitment proposal. Its quite feasible that Burro/Tew requested it from him after their initial talks ages ago? While its speculation, it's also feasible to speculate that maybe Burro/Tew went through this entire proposal process to further drag out negotiations because really they preferred the Patrons Model all along?

After all, Tinkler withdrew from it all in disgust. There seems to be more behind that than simply being ' called out ' on changes to his proposal.

I just don't know mate. I am struggling to understand the concept of a flawed business model $4M in debt, having the right to demand anything really.

Especially when the duo seem driven to put forward a Patrons Model ( without the required support of the members according to Burro ) that will not change the way the clubs flawed business model runs the club.

Nothing changes except the flawed business model has more money to spend. Won't that be a challenge given any profits we have had recently has come from cutback after cutback after budgetary cutback.

Hmmm what to do with all this extra money!
 

Karmawave

Bench
Messages
4,950
Macca vitriolic or not, all I see is that a Patrons Model will come in, and the clubs management and business model won't need to change one bit from its current failings.

Please elaborate on your thoughts on this?

Surely giving a bunch of extra money to the same people who already have a history of losing it ( except for when the budgets have been cutback to a shoestring ) is only delaying the inevitable?
 

macavity

Referee
Messages
20,575
We need to stop comparing the original Tinkler proposal to the patrons trust model.

It is like comparing a pegasus to a horse.

One does not (and arguably never did) exist.

No one disputes that the original offer is superior to the patrons trust. The board agreed, too.

But the original offer does not exist.

Currently, no Tinkler offer exists.

The patrons trust exists, is catch free, and is infinately better than the alternative, which is nothing.

I cannot believe people are bagging the board for having a plan B. How dare they plan for a contingency!

The "flaw" in the business model is that we have retained debt and do not have reserves to draw on. We need to give the "new" business model time to operate before dismissing it as "flawed", Karma.
 

macavity

Referee
Messages
20,575
Karma, I don't accept your premise so cannot debate it.

Your argument is akin to saying that you could beat Mike Tyson in a fight if he had his hands bound, therefore he cannot fight.

We cannot say whether these people can manage a well financed Knights, because they have not had the opportunity to do so.

What we do know is that they have been successful in other businesses, and have managed to keep the Knights afloat despite a concerted effort from some to sink us.

I am willing to give them an opportunity before writing them off.
 

perverse

Referee
Messages
26,505
there are a few reasons why a flawed business model can still be worth money:

1. scarcity - you can't go down to woolies and buy an NRL club.
2. opportunity - a rosy horizon, big opportunity to walk in and play the hero with the whole NRL landscape changing in the next couple of years.
3. goodwill - another commodity that isn't easy to purchase.

the reason why they don't need to go through the members for the Patrons Model is that it isn't privitisation. the club stays as is, but has a bunch of invisible sugar daddies that hand out interest-free loans. we, the members, still own the club. there is nothing to put to vote.

i mean i do agree with you on the financial point, though. absolutely, it's probably the least important factor (although still relevant given that he has promised it). i wouldn't be concerned in the first 2 or 3 years that he would do anything less than dump cash into the place. it would be the proceeding 7 or 8 years i'm concerned about. if he loses interest in his plaything then he might just get bored and do something we all would regret, like selling us to Singo (as a pie in the sky, pulled out of the air extreme example). the fact is unless there's something on paper to stop him doing it, it's always an option for him, and he's a busy man.

i would totally buy into the trust model if Tinkler had given us reason to trust him, but he has done the complete opposite. it would only be a month ago that i was ready to suck the mans c**k clean off. much has changed in that month... and now we're talking about a period of 10 years with the guy (although the knights reckon it's 2, go figure).

so little real information... so many different interpretations of what has transpired thus far, and you know we're probably all wrong in many areas. this is why i demand clarification. none of these blokes have proven themselves trustworthy lately, and it is very unfortunate.
 

Karmawave

Bench
Messages
4,950
I cannot believe people are bagging the board for having a plan B. How dare they plan for a contingency!

The "flaw" in the business model is that we have retained debt and do not have reserves to draw on. We need to give the "new" business model time to operate before dismissing it as "flawed", Karma.


Certainly not bagging the Knights for having a Plan B, but if the Knights Plan B, was really their PLAN A all along, then its a bit underhanded. Just speculation, but starting to get that feeling mate.

The flaw in the business model is that under-qualified people are running key aspects of the club - you've said that to me yourself, that the club employs people because they're the cheapest.

So unless this new cash reserve is going to see them replaced by people who are qualified enough to take over spending all of this money, then I have no confidence at all that the business model will remain anything but flawed?

So if you're saying that there will be mass sackings of current staff, to be replaced by higher salaried improvements, then yes, they deserve every chance to operate under the patrons model.

Not overly confident that will happen though. Are you?

If it does - absolutely, give them the chance!
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,937
If he is, the financial results of the club whilst he has been managing the place suggest he has been worth it.
 

macavity

Referee
Messages
20,575
Certainly not bagging the Knights for having a Plan B, but if the Knights Plan B, was really their PLAN A all along, then its a bit underhanded. Just speculation, but starting to get that feeling mate.

FMD, tin foil hat, mate?

Long and tumultuous way to go about it, isn't it?

For one, your conspiracy theory entirely relies on Tinkler being an ass in negotiations - how do they turn him down if he delivers on what he has promised and they have given in principle support to?

Not to mention you piss off the members, piss off Tinkler, keep your patrons in limbo, get the media even further off-side and set yourself up as a punching bag from here to eternity.

You come up with some bizarre calls mate, but this is by far the most out there.

The flaw in the business model is that under-qualified people are running key aspects of the club - you've said that to me yourself, that the club employs people because they're the cheapest.

More under-resourced than under-qualified, but yes, there are plenty of areas for improvement - which will mostly be delievered by proper resources.

I would suggest that you learn fast working on a shoe string - again, these people deserve a chance to perform when they are doing their job, instead of their job plus three more. If they don't perform in those circumstances, then turf them.

I am sorry, having seen how stretched these guys are, and what they deliver with nothing, I can't see how it is fair to rob them an opportunity to deliver when they are actually resourced.
 

perverse

Referee
Messages
26,505
If he is, the financial results of the club whilst he has been managing the place suggest he has been worth it.
... and it would be well below his asking price elsewhere.
 

perverse

Referee
Messages
26,505
and sorry mac, but i can't sit here and watch you claim that they are just under-resourced and not under-qualified when i've had conversations with you to the contrary. you know as well as myself and Karma do that there are plenty of muppets rowing the ship at the moment, maybe not at the very top, but certainly in other areas.

sure, you can get better muppets to run it with more money, but that's pretty much a roundabout way of saying the exact same thing.
 

perverse

Referee
Messages
26,505
I don't blame the guy for protecting his job.
if he leaves the Knights, he will be in another job on double what he's earning now within a few weeks. count on it. Burraston has no financial motive or incentive to hang around, and neither do any of the board members - who do it for free.
 

macavity

Referee
Messages
20,575
and sorry mac, but i can't sit here and watch you claim that they are just under-resourced and not under-qualified when i've had conversations with you to the contrary. you know as well as myself and Karma do that there are plenty of muppets rowing the ship at the moment, maybe not at the very top, but certainly in other areas.

sure, you can get better muppets to run it with more money, but that's pretty much a roundabout way of saying the exact same thing.

Sure, things get frustrating at times - but mostly because there are a million things on the boil so very few of them actually get done.

Turfing staff when we get cash is like leaving your devoted partner when you get a boob job - we owe it to them to at least give them an opportunity to show they are up to it when they are just doing their job.

Anyway, can we please just focus on the absurdity of Karma's nutjob conspiracy theory? ;-)
 

Rusty

Juniors
Messages
1,676
if he leaves the Knights, he will be in another job on double what he's earning now within a few weeks. count on it. Burraston has no financial motive to hang around, and neither do any of the board members - who do it for free.


Good for him.

Though, I would be backing Tinkler a 35 year old billionaire to run the place better.
 
Top