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.