Patron's Trust

[slotmachine]

My understanding is the cash has to be paid back to the trust, which can then "loan" it for further Knights projects.

The cash is like a rolling reserve - effectively we become self-funding with a large, interest free line of credit.

So no extra revenue.

Wow.

 

[slotmachine]

How does that differ from a sponsor?

We have to pay it back, so it's not even as good as a sponsor.

 

[Newie is God's Country]

Are we going to see another Parramatta type situation here with the board being overthrown by a gang of more powerful figures? Tinkler will not go away on this. No way. He is too proud. He is banking on public outcry over this and I believe will get it in large numbers as time goes by. Tinkler is close mates with Singo for one, so we will be smashed in the Murdoch papers (nothing new) as 2GB basically read their news broadcasts from it, and add to that the anti Burro Tew brigade led by One not to be mentioned local member, and it could get ugly this.

 

[B-dos]

i honestly cannot believe the desperation of people here to actually consider this patrons trust model a equal alternative to tinkler

i cannot believe the blind allegience being demonstrated toward burraston and tew

these two ran out and called their 'donors' immediately after farkng up the tinkler deal to save their own skins and you guys have absolutely nothing to say about it?

and as ive said many times before, this isnt just about the money. this is about professional management,. this is about having a team in charge with the gumption and ability to lure the best players in the comp. the promise of loan funds on tap (which only seems remotely good if you consider the fact no one wants to lend us money in the real world) means nothing when it includes more of the same management and directionless leadership

seems to me that with so much being thrown at the club by tinkler, the cash, the not-for-profit, the professional management, people have become complacent and actually begun believing we can walk away and everything will be fine. i for one have a clear memory of the poor way our club has been managd to date and i wanted change

it really baffles me that it seems im in the minority (here) in being utterly devastated that this amazing opportunity has been lost (for now at least)

 

[macavity]

So no extra revenue.

Wow.

We have to pay it back, so it's not even as good as a sponsor.

Dude, are you serious?

Do you understand how a trust works?

I will try to dumb it down for you.

People put money into a fund. The money is held in the fund on trust for the Knights.

The people can't take it back out for themselves - it has to be used for the benefit of the Knights. It is captured in the trust forever.

The Knights tell the people what they would like to use the money for, and the trust (not the people, they are only the trustees) loan the money to the Knights on favourable terms. The Knights pay the money back into the fund - replenishing the fund.

The fund then lends the money to the Knights again for a different project, and they pay it back again.

Rinse, repeat.

It may not have the bling of being owned by a bazillionaire, but it is a bloody fantastic facility to have.

 

[macavity]

it really baffles me that it seems im in the minority (here) in being utterly devastated that this amazing opportunity has been lost (for now at least)

It really baffles me that you think you are in the minority in being devestated.

We are all devestated mate.

We were promised the world - and we believed it was on its way.

The documents did not reflect the promise.

That was devestating.

I would say it amazes me that your blind devotion to your ideology stops you from assessing things rationally, but it doesn't amaze me at all. It is a core character trait of ideologues, so it is expected from you.

 

[B-dos]

I would say it amazes me that your blind devotion to your ideology stops you from assessing things rationally, but it doesn't amaze me at all. It is a core character trait of ideologues, so it is expected from you.

and your continued demonstration of your quite sad superiority complex is evident throught every one of your posts mac. so what?

your blind devotion to your mates is clearly what makes you believe thier "tinkler tricked us" story. good for you. you might get that board posi yet...

and coming from you its completely expected

 

[cram]

The problem is we don't know who tricked who and if anyone was tricked at all. The only way this can move forward is for the proposal to be handed over to a third party for their unbiased assessment providing a benefit and risk analysis and then those details being distributed, in plain english to members for a vote.

The only way that can happen is for Tew and Burraston to move on. I am not anti these blokes but I just think we can't move forward with them at the helm.

 

[B-dos]

agreed cram. well said

however im not sure handing the deal to a third party is a viable possibility although would certainly be worthwhile if possible

if tew and burraston stand down (unlikely given their immediate tabling of a new offer to save their skins) the new management should put the tinkler deal tothe vote immediately. i think the only way they will go is if they are removed by a vote.

 

[Nuffy]

I'm going to weigh in here and say that whilst I believe that the directors in particular have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the members, I am not totally sure that the CEO should be making any statements on the issue, nor should he be attending press conferences.

This is a discussion and decision for the full board, at every step of the process, I'd also like to know who is handling the legal aspects for the club, I hope it is not a firm associated with the club or one of its directors.

Where I think the club has been outsmarted is in the media aspect, they were never going to get a fair go in the media so they shouldn't have tried to trump Tinkler in that aspect.

I don't doubt that Burro and Tew are clever guys, they just show poor judgement in a number of areas, wheeling out the Patrons trust model, just hours after getting rebuffed by Tinkler, smacks of desperation, pure and simple.

If it was such a good idea, put it on the table, not as the preferred option, but rather an option, to offer it as a better alternative to the idea you've publically backed as a board is just plain dumb.

Tinkler's article in the media today indicates that yesterday was just a tactic, the Knights board needs to get on the front foot, otherwise the public and media will destroy them.

 

[Alex28]

B-Dos - seriously...you are being a moron. The board can't just make sh*t up like the Tinkler offer being varied from what was initially promised. Stuff like that they could be found out about in a second and in all this, Tinkler has not produced the document presented to the board and said "they are lying".

In saying this it does worry me that the board has given up on Tinkler completely and moving in a different direction without finding out from Tinkler what has to happen for him to come back and talk to the club. If it means negotiating with different people - great. Lets do that.

I can't see how the Patron's Trust is a superior offer to Tinkler and it does appear they gave up on this too quickly. Maybe they needed to produce it quickly to appease the members, maybe they have been talking to the potential trustee's before Tinkler gave up on it, maybe they wanted this all along.

I agree with Cram that Tew and Burro are in an untenable position and need to resign from their positions so the club gets the best deal - not just any deal.

 

[slotmachine]

Dude, are you serious?

Do you understand how a trust works?

I will try to dumb it down for you.

People put money into a fund. The money is held in the fund on trust for the Knights.

The people can't take it back out for themselves - it has to be used for the benefit of the Knights. It is captured in the trust forever.

The Knights tell the people what they would like to use the money for, and the trust (not the people, they are only the trustees) loan the money to the Knights on favourable terms. The Knights pay the money back into the fund - replenishing the fund.

The fund then lends the money to the Kniughts again for a different project, and they pay it back again.

Rinse, repeat.

It may not have the bling of being owned by a bazillionaire, but it is a bloody fantastic facility to have.

I am serious. Perhaps you need it to be dumbed down.

I stand by my statements.

Does the trust provide any revenue? No.
Would ongoing sponsorship with no need for replenishment be better? Yes.

 

[B-dos]

B-Dos - seriously...you are being a moron. The board can't just make sh*t up like the Tinkler offer being varied from what was initially promised. Stuff like that they could be found out about in a second and in all this, Tinkler has not produced the document presented to the board and said "they are lying".

what im saying is the jury is well and truly out on what occurred. i certainly do not blindly take burraston and tews word for it and it wouldnt surprise me if they were given incorrect advice at all.

 

[Alex28]

Does the trust provide any revenue? No.
Would ongoing sponsorship with no need for replenishment be better? Yes.

The only benefit I see to the new model is that we do not need to rely on the whim of a benefactor to actually pay the cash promised. Tinkler could withdraw his support at any minute he decides he doesn't want to and according to the board there was nothing in place enforcing him to.

The problem I do see with the Patron's Trust is that it could just be a way of financing accumulated losses (in the fact that we may not be able to repay the trust back if we do not make a profit) and once we blow that money what do we do?

 

[Alex28]

what im saying is the jury is well and truly out on what occurred. i certainly do not blindly take burraston and tews word for it and it wouldnt surprise me if they were given incorrect advice at all.

I think the blame lays on both sides, however I would suggest that if Tinkler produced a document identical to what he initially promised in the $100 Million/10 Year offer we would not have this situation. It must have been watered down in some form for Tew/Burro to react the way they have.

However I agree that they gave up on it far too quickly and seemed to have Plan B ready to go as soon as Tinky pulled out. Does appear to have happened far too quick. It took them a month to look over Tinkler's deal however they have the Patron's Trust deal ready to put to the members on Monday?

Also...the members don't need to vote on the Patron's Trust at all? This right Mac?

 

[macavity]

and your continued demonstration of your quite sad superiority complex is evident throught every one of your posts mac. so what?

your blind devotion to your mates is clearly what makes you believe thier "tinkler tricked us" story. good for you. you might get that board posi yet...

and coming from you its completely expected

It is fact that the deal was changed BDos. Tinkler's own press release confirms it.

Why do you deny reality?

 

[B-dos]

It is fact that the deal was changed BDos. Tinkler's own press release confirms it.

Why do you deny reality?

where has tinkler confirm he changed the deal on the sly?

 

[macavity]

http://images.smh.com.au/file/2011/02/20/2194333/Statement%20from%20the%20Tinkler%20Sports%20Group.pdf?rand=1298200121052

"Further we are also pleased to commit today to a minimum $1 million per annum + CPI spend in Junior Development but have withdrawn our offer to agree to a buyback for the Club in certain circumstances"

 

[Elephant Hunter]

While everyone is complaining that the Patron model is not as good and most agree Tinkler has withdrawn is offer as a tactic to drive the price down. Why has no one thought about the fact that the Patron model being so quickly re fired could just as easily be a negotiation tactic from the Knights.

The Patron model being reaily available to replace the Tinkler offer strengthens the Knights position and possibly make Tinkler realise that his tactic may not be the best option for him.

Maybe both sides are playing tactical cards yesterday. Admittedly doing it in the press is going to get both sides on the outs with the public

 

[B-dos]

so it was withdrawn at some stage (not sure if that release was the actual notification?) for some reason.

however it doesnt sound to me like it was a sneaky little trick done on the sly.

perhaps if the knights board discussed it with tinkler, and didnt send out a press release first (without even notifying the f**king buyer) we might still be in a position to deal...