Nathan Tinkler withdraws Knights offer

[perverse]

lol, mate i'm on the fence. Karma is blowing a lot of hot air, but there is plenty of food for thought there, too. there is no way i'm committing to either side of this argument now until i know the facts. no way in hell.

 

[perverse]

Good for him.

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

so might i under the correct circumstance.

 

[cram]

lol, mate i'm on the fence. Karma is blowing a lot of hot air, but there is plenty of food for thought there, too. there is no way i'm committing to either side of this argument now until i know the facts. no way in hell.

And I wonder whether we will ever know the facts.

 

[perverse]

And I wonder whether we will ever know the facts.

hard to say, but that certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't try to obtain them.

 

[slotmachine]

Which will mostly be delievered by proper resources.

Has there been an announcement on when this is happening?

 

[Joker's Wild]

The fact that the last "deal" Tinkler offered left the club open to be sold to anyone, including another Tinkler owned entity, after 1 year without holding the new owner to any obligations lined out in the original contract is enough reason to torpedo it imo.

Say what you want about the current admin dragging out proceedings, Tinks being frustrated, blah blah blah but if you think that the above loop hole shouldnt have been questioned then you have a head made of granite.

 

[slotmachine]

Can anyone explain why Tinkler would spend millions clearing the clubs debt just to run it into the ground?

 

[perverse]

Can anyone explain why Tinkler would spend millions clearing the clubs debt just to run it into the ground?

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.

getting sick of answering similar/the same questons over... and over... and over again. the "into the ground" part is irrelevant. no-one is suggesting he would do that on purpose, which is what you are implying by saying that - that it would be a concious decision to ruin the club.

 

[slotmachine]

the "into the ground" part is irrelevant. no-one is suggesting he would do that on purpose, which is what you are implying by saying that - that it would be a concious decision to ruin the club.

What are peoples issues then with him taking over then, even if his proposed deal did change and there was no guarantee other than clearing the debt?

It reeks of narrow mindedness and suspicion. All too common in Newcastle unfortunately.

 

[Joker's Wild]

So you think we should just trust him to do the right thing with no obligations in writing slotmachine?

 

[Karmawave]

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

Was just a thought mate. I don't really think it is that absurd at all.

Putting 2 and 2 together. A guy in Tinkler saying he felt the Knights never really did want to get a deal made and made life difficult for him, combined with the knowledge directly from you yourself that the Knights have been working on a Patrons Model concept for quite some time. This with a strong impression I received from our chats that Burro was very keen on the idea to proceed without privatisation.

I recall in the first instance of Tinkler making his first offer initial ( which was rejected ) that you were very supportive of not privatising because you had faith that Burro was working on this patrons model which he thought would work better and keep the team community owned.

I hope I remember correctly, and if not I do apologise, as it was awhile ago.

It is that knowledge armed with Tinkler saying roadblocks were in his way, that leads me to a ' SPECULATION ' - that's all it is - that the Knights really wanted to proceed with the Patrons Model all along.

Add to that the timing of the announcement of the Patrons Model - with the idea being it will be put to members as soon as this Monday, and it comes across as a bit wrong.

Here we have Plan B somehow able to be organised within a couple of days to present to members, while Plan A somehow dragged on for months. Unless that was all Tinklers fault?

It's really not as absurd as you make out when you take all of the above into account.

Here's another conspiracy theory - Maybe you really want to go out of your way to make it seem absurd because maybe its true? ;-)

 

[slotmachine]

So you think we should just trust him to do the right thing with no obligations in writing slotmachine?

Our current structure doesn't guarantee anything, unless you count accumulating losses from year to year.

They're also not billionaires.

So yes.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Its certainly possible Karma and given the lowball offer the 1st time around its not a big stretch to imagine the Patrons Trust option to be better.

However, the "$100M" offer (actually around $30M in reality) was widely endorced by everyone here in the initial format. The watered down final draft though puts us back to the PT option being superior, given the vast whole in the contract regarding any sort of guaantee beyond a 2 year period

 

[Joker's Wild]

Our current structure doesn't guarantee anything, unless you count accumulating losses from year to year.

They're also not billionaires.

So yes.

Losses? The club has posted profits in the last 2 seasons

I am glad you dont handle my finances mate. Giving control to someone with nothing but faith is folly in any business.

 

[Karmawave]

Losses? The club has posted profits in the last 2 seasons

Yeah for one reason and one reason alone - they cut all spending to the barest of minimums - including employing the cheapest of staff, in the smallest possible numbers available.

They've had one person doubling up onto 2 and 3 different roles which needed 2 or 3 different employees to run instead of 1.

I can't be certain but I don't even think they have a proper marketing department.

Easy to get a ' profit ' if you cut back on everything spending wise.

Does it make the business and the product better?

No.

 

[Spot On]

The current board will be punted.
The new board will accept Tinklers offer.
Tinkler will get the club.

I can't see it happening any other way at the moment.

 

[Alex28]

The current board will be punted.
The new board will accept Tinklers offer.
Tinkler will get the club.

I can't see it happening any other way at the moment.

This.

 

[slotmachine]

Tinkler will get the club.

Hopefully it won't be too late to sign Snowden if this happens.

 

[macavity]

Was just a thought mate. I don't really think it is that absurd at all.

it is still absurd.

Putting 2 and 2 together.

and getting 22....

A guy in Tinkler saying he felt the Knights never really did want to get a deal made and made life difficult for him, combined with the knowledge directly from you yourself that the Knights have been working on a Patrons Model concept for quite some time. This with a strong impression I received from our chats that Burro was very keen on the idea to proceed without privatisation.

I recall in the first instance of Tinkler making his first offer initial ( which was rejected ) that you were very supportive of not privatising because you had faith that Burro was working on this patrons model which he thought would work better and keep the team community owned.

we discussed the patrons trust BEFORE any privatisation deal was put mate.

and for the record, the trust is still a better deal than Tinkler's first offer was. Or his "final" offer for that matter. The "middle" offer (the one that was unilaterally changed) was superior to the trust - hence it was endorsed!

I hope I remember correctly, and if not I do apologise, as it was awhile ago.

yes it was a while ago - before any offer was put.

It is that knowledge armed with Tinkler saying roadblocks were in his way, that leads me to a ' SPECULATION ' - that's all it is - that the Knights really wanted to proceed with the Patrons Model all along.

refer to my previous post. it is an absurd assertion that a board would agree to something and then actively work to thwart it. absolutely absurd.

it also completely ignores that TINKLER CHANGED KEY PARTS OF THE DEAL.

oh, gee, and it also ignores that TINKLER PULLED OUT WHEN QUESTIONED ON THOSE CHANGES.

your whole tin-foil hat absurdity relies on Tinkler being a douche in negotiations. you are asserting that the board knew he would be a douche in negotiations?

Add to that the timing of the announcement of the Patrons Model - with the idea being it will be put to members as soon as this Monday, and it comes across as a bit wrong.

they should be congratulated, not suspected, for having a plan B ready to go.

why is it so hard to believe that the patrons had said that if Tinkler falls over they were there to help.... yet you find it easy to believe that Tinkler has carried on like a saint here.....

Here we have Plan B somehow able to be organised within a couple of days to present to members, while Plan A somehow dragged on for months. Unless that was all Tinklers fault?

the timeline for Plan A has been well covered. documents recieved wednesday evening, unanimous support demanded by Friday. Tinkler pulls out Monday morning.

It's really not as absurd as you make out when you take all of the above into account.

still absurd mate.

Here's another conspiracy theory - Maybe you really want to go out of your way to make it seem absurd because maybe its true? ;-)

you give me way too much credit - I am not that sophisticated, just ask my wife (or any of my mates, for that matter).

 

[perverse]

you give me way too much credit - I am not that sophisticated, just ask my wife (or any of my mates, for that matter).

it's true. he isn't.