Nathan Tinkler withdraws Knights offer

[perverse]

Alex28 - the only other way to look at it is that Tew and Burro may be lying themselves. hard to say - Tinkler did make a media release after the Knights claiming that the proposal did indeed include a 10 year commitment amognst refuting other things the Knights claim, and he added the junior stuff in (and i stated before that i didn't think this was a particularly large issue, more likely an oversight).

as i've said, i'm reading from the same page that you are, the whole thing stinks and looks sus to me... and i struggle to accept that Burro and Tew would have the hide to lie so outrageously about the proposal.

i said a few days ago it looks like a government tactic for implementing an unpopular bill. it has looked to me for a while that Tinkler is contructing a problem to implement his solution. Mission 1 - discredit and remove current administration. Mission 2 - swoop in to save the day from our ineptitude. don't be surprised if Tinkler has offered a sh*t deal to the current admin to make them look bad, only coming back soon in the future to provide the exact promises he was promising in the first place in the papers to a rousing chorus of applause for getting rid of the big bad administrators. he will bury them in the media, and it will guarentee him passage through the membership vote if he can pull it off. it's hard to get 75% of people to agree on the sky being blue, but create a siege mentality or controversy and watch us flock to the poll booth.

 

[Jobdog]

So, everyone knows this whole deal was only worth $100 mill if everyone associated with the club pulled out, right? I'm guessing you do, but just making sure ...

 

[Peppers]

The thing about Tinkler that was worrying me was that if he is making offers for players when he doesn't own the joint, one would think he would want to be even more hands on if he does own it. Surely the coach needs to be consulted on player movements.

Mad Dog would be having palpitations. He got away from Russell at Souths showing him what lines to run at training. He may have walked straight into Tinkler giving him tips on nutrition and how to dominate in the play the ball.

 

[Alex28]

Alex28 - the only other way to look at it is that Tew and Burro may be lying themselves. hard to say - Tinkler did make a media release after the Knights claiming that the proposal did indeed include a 10 year commitment amognst refuting other things the Knights claim, and he added the junior stuff in (and i stated before that i didn't think this was a particularly large issue, more likely an oversight).

as i've said, i'm reading from the same page that you are, the whole thing stinks and looks sus to me... and i struggle to accept that Burro and Tew would have the hide to lie so outrageously about the proposal.

All Tinkler would have to do is produce the offer document to the Herald, they would print it and Tew and Burro would have been out of roles in the organisation.

I can't see how they would be in the position to lie about the Tinkler offer at all - I mean they were the ones that suggested the members should investigate it with the view of accepting it in the first place.

 

[Newynut]

Get to the meeting at the Mark Hotel Lambton, at 6.00pm. If they have enough members there will be a vote of no confidence of the Board and if they get 100 vote fore, the board will be stood down.

 

[badav]

As a non Knights fan, i personally don't believe anything at all issued by Tinkler Sports Group.

I think Tinkler showed a hell of a lot of arrogance and disrespect for the game by meddling in player negotiations before taking any control over the club. And further disrespect by having TSG issue a statement denying such dealings when that is clearly bullsh*t. And by stating they will never again work with the current management they are obviously trying to oust them by influencing opinions of the voting members.

My view is TSG expected the Newcastle board to hand over control no questions asked, many Knights fans on here were totally blinded by visions of granduer. Some of you even seemed to think you could sign any player you wanted for any amount because Tinkler would take care of third party deals for everyone. All bullsh*t.

Newcastle will roll on. Privatisation ain't nothing to sneeze at. If you going to hand over complete control of an organisation for what could be a long time period it sure as f**k has to be on the right terms.

 

[strewth_mate]

Regardless of how either side has snuggled up to the media, a bad deal is a bad deal and the facts are buried somewhere. If what had originally appeared a lovely act of philanthropy has indeed turned into a lovely act of ratf**king then it is just sensible business from the Knights in refusing to roll over.

It's interesting that whatever the public's view of the board - and there are several valid views for and against - this is a rare opportunity for them to have shown some business backbone that in times past the greater public may well have applauded, yet in this case it may well work against them.

 

[TooheysNew]

Get to the meeting at the Mark Hotel Lambton, at 6.00pm. If they have enough members there will be a vote of no confidence of the Board and if they get 100 vote fore, the board will be stood down.

Is that what you want to happen?

 

[G.I.]

What a fat f*ck

 

[Jobdog]

Get to the meeting at the Mark Hotel Lambton, at 6.00pm. If they have enough members there will be a vote of no confidence of the Board and if they get 100 vote fore, the board will be stood down.

And what the f**k would that achieve?

The club being bent over and taken over by a rich man who throws the toys out of the cot when he doesn't get his own way? Fantastic!:crazy:

 

[perverse]

Get to the meeting at the Mark Hotel Lambton, at 6.00pm. If they have enough members there will be a vote of no confidence of the Board and if they get 100 vote fore, the board will be stood down.

no... if they get 100 votes to the fore then it will be put to the entire membership as a vote.

100 members can't just rock up and sack the board, surely.

i'll be there with bells on, ears and eyes wide open.

 

[adamkungl]

no... if they get 100 votes to the fore then it will be put to the entire membership as a vote.

100 members can't just rock up and sack the board, surely.

i'll be there with bells on, ears and eyes wide open.

That would be ridiculous if 100 people could sack the board.

 

[Danish Moo Cow]

I'd be very surprised if they even get 100 voting members to The Mark.

 

[Alex28]

Straight from the Herald:

The Newcastle Herald has been told the meeting has been called with a view to attracting at least 100 members, who would then be in a position to call an extraordinary general meeting in 21 days to move a vote of no confidence in the club’s board of directors.

As if 100 members could sack the board. We would have been through hundreds of them by now!

 

[adamkungl]

In all likelihood then, this will go to an EGM.

The board will have 3 weeks to prove that they made the right decision. By the sounds of opinions on here, they will be up against it even before Tinkler attempts to destroy them in the media.

 

[cram]

I wonder how many of those that turn up are actually eligible to vote? Do the 100 members need to eligible voting members?

 

[cram]

I wonder how many of those that turn up are actually eligible to vote? Do the 100 members need to eligible voting members?

 

[adamkungl]

In all likelihood then, this will go to an EGM.

The board will have 3 weeks to prove that they made the right decision. By the sounds of opinions on here, they will be up against it even before Tinkler attempts to destroy them in the media.

 

[cram]

Anyone know where one could find a copy of the constitution?

 

[Newynut]

Yep sorry that didnt sound right, The 100 members would then bring on a general ballot to see if the entire membership have no confidence in the board.

Its a way for members to actually llok at these deals themselves and hopefully feep negotiations ongoing.

Tinkler has only withdrawn the deal with the current board.