G'day all. I am an old fella and have been a Knights supporter since foundation in 1988. Watched every game from the hill in the first 5 years and was always a proud supporter until recent times.
I have been based overseas for a while now, so not as close to the action as most people on this forum. Infact, I have been a passive observer of the threads in this forum for a long time now, and it has been entertaining as well as a good way to keep in touch with the comings and goings of my footy club. Apologies in advance if any of my comments are uninformed or I have missed something.....just wanted to put my 2 cents worth into the argument because I feel we are reaching a critical point in the clubs history, I thought I should get off my @rse, get a log in and put forward an opinion. Please feel free to correct any of the below if not factual.
The Knights may not ever go away, but I want to see us successful again, and at the moment (sadly) I don't think we can compete with the big boys with our current model.
Right, that bullsh!t aside, this is my understanding of the situation we find ourselves in:
- We are a technically a bankrupt entity, and have never really been a self sustaining enterprise. We are in debt, some of it to Nathan Tinkler; we are in debt, yes, but most of it is carryover from sins of past administrations. the current administration has, in fact, turned our financial situation around and with the new corporate facilities available with the new stand, a far better stadium arrangement, the new indepedant commission and the new tv rights deal, i see nothing but steady prosperity for the club. it may not be the glamourous riches of Tinkler, but we arn't in the terrible place people would have you believe. $2.5 - $3mill in debt is managable for a business that turns over $12mill at least just off its own bat, without taking into account NRL grants and such.
- Nathan Tinkler is a business man with a strong and established ties with the local community, but a reputation of being hard nosed and stubborn (to say the least); yes, to say the least.
- No businessman in their right mind would pay 100 million for an entity that for over 10 years is a proven failure (regardless of the fact that it might not have always been a commercial enterprise). To think they would is plane stupidity; i don't care if he doesn't put a cent into the club - if he's good enough. pissing in our pocket an underwriting income streams that we generate $12mill of revenue from for $10mill isn't good enough. not only does it give him no incentive to increase our revenue, our income can actually decrease by $2mill before he even puts his hand in his pocket! not good enough, i'm afraid. i have no problem with him included all of the stated income streams, but the figure would have to be increased to something in the order of $15mill a year, if he's going to be fair dinkum, or alternatively deliver what he promised initially (is that so much to ask?) and only underwrite a limited number of our income streams - those being related to sponsorship.
- Tinkler is know as having an eye for a bargain and he has shown a good commitment to the Jets and done some good things (albeit early days). He also has a good track record in the community both business and charitable works. This is without question if you look beyond the situation with the Knights. Actually, let's look at the Knights, he has loaned us money and has not put pressure on for commercial repayment terms. This will likely change after today's events; absolutely he has good eyes for a bargain, that's why he's trying to pick us up on the cheap (i.e free). yes, he loaned us money, and the minute he made a play for ownership of the Knights, he called that debt in - to place further pressure on the deal. good to have leverage, eh?
- No one knows what the original and current terms were/are other than the people involved directly in the negotiations. Tinkler has refuted Board claims late today that the "sponsorship" included gate and other commercial takings. Suffice to say someone is not telling the truth. I don't really care who. This i do agree with. hopefully more is revealed in the coming week, culminating in the meeting next Monday.
- It is obvious Tinkler has agitated heavily in the last few days because he has become frustrated with the fact the process has bogged down and feels he is being stalled by the board. This includes the Snowden offer and pulling out before the meeting today. Playing the media, yes, but a standard Corporate tactic nonetheless, why are people surprised? Not saying I agree with his approach, but most successful business men are often spoiled children when they don't get what they want. the process hasn't been bogged down in the slightest. the knights have been racing madly to get this ready in the timeframes they've been provided by an extremely pushy Nathan Tinkler.
- We know little of the guaranteed commitment or otherwise required from the Trust Model other than what we are told by the Board. However, should one of the donors (let's remember that is all they are) go bust there is no way the Knights will see their money - guarantees or not. We become or (some might argue) remain a charity case. not donors, lenders. the Patrons Trust model is a windfall for the Knights if they ever need the extra capital. the current club structure stays in place, but there is a nice juicy safety net of funds to dip into if and when necessary.
My point is, put emotion aside and consider the facts and what will really make the club stronger. Everyone will have a different point of view on this.
My own opinion? We don't know exactly what we will get with Tinkler, but we know he has a strong regional conection, cares about the community, and (as Roopy put it), the ride will be exciting. As for the Board, we know what we will get, we have had years of it - boring mediocrity, poor decisions on and off the field and a baseline that will never see us win a premiership again. It's a gamble, but I'll take a punt on Tinkler any day over continued mediocrity. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Pedge
