Patron's Trust

[macavity]

so it was withdrawn at some stage (not sure if that release was the actual notification?)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

LOL

so you begrudgingly admit he unilaterally changed a fundamental part of the deal, but because he is rich, that is ok....

 

[Allstar Knights]

Why would he withdraw the buy back offer? Sounds sus to me

$1m in junior development is very poor considering we pay $2m at the moment. So much for ensuring we have a world class junior development system *Sigh*

Basically, without the needed money spent on junior development, we'd be the new Soutths.

 

[Alex28]

Plus it wasn't actually clear whether he was committing $1 Million of his own money towards junior development, or whether he was committing $1 Million of existing Knights revenue towards junior development.

It is clear that the offer wasn't what was originally accepted by the board as the best proposal.

 

[B-dos]

LOL

so you begrudgingly admit he unilaterally changed a fundamental part of the deal, but because he is rich, that is ok....

yes mac. i concede he has confirmed a detail was of the offer was withdrawn by tinkler. fair enough

this however doesnt really tie into the claims by burraston and tew that the offer was a pale comparison to the "original" one which is pretty much the entire point of this whole debacle

and you can keep childishly b!tching on with your misjudged perceptions of my position, all you like. though its not a real good look...

 

[macavity]

yes mac. i concede he has confirmed a detail was of the offer was withdrawn by tinkler. fair enough

this however doesnt really tie into the claims by burraston and tew that the offer was a pale comparison to the "original" one which is pretty much the entire point of this whole debacle

and you can keep childishly b!tching on with your misjudged perceptions of my position, all you like. though its not a real good look...

It entirely "ties" to the fact that the offer was fundamentally changed so as to be worse for the club.

But you can keep misrepresenting the facts, although it is not a very good look.

 

[Karmawave]

So essentially the ' Patrons Trust ' becomes a glorified tax write off for the rich donors putting money into the fund, while letting the Knights current flawed business model continue in exactly the same way they are now - except they'll have more money to spend on their flawed business management.

Great. ;-)

I view that as a way to simply elongate the inevitable.

While ever the money needs to be paid back by the Knights into the fund, and while the flawed business model the Knights have currently continues to be allowed to continue, where are the guarantees that the Knights will even continue to profit enough to pay back the fund?

Sure, its an incredibly favourable loan - interest free no doubt , but loans still need to be paid back right?

How exactly can we have any confidence whatsoever that the current business model will always ensure any loans bring profits?

What if it rains on game day 7 times a year after they've just borrowed $1M from the fund?

Its a glorified way to accumulate more debt in a way that is just nicer than the banks, but its still a debt all the same.

The appeal of Tinklers offer wasn't so much just the money being offered. It was the chance to bring in completely new management and a fresh business model to rid ourselves of the flawed one that exists currently. This part I believe has been severely underplayed, and the focus has been entirely on the cash.

From the rich donors perspective putting cash into the patrons trust, what isn't to like!!! It sure beats setting up some private shell company in the Cayman Islands to stash their money from the ATO. ;-)

Delaying the inevitable, that's all this is.

 

[B-dos]

It entirely "ties" to the fact that the offer was fundamentally changed so as to be worse for the club.

an element was withdrawn. burraston and tew have implied the offer was vastly different to the 'original' offer tabled by tinkler

tinkler denies this outright

But you can keep misrepresenting the facts, although it is not a very good look.

im stating facts mac

 

[B-dos]

The appeal of Tinklers offer wasn't so much just the money being offered. It was the chance to bring in completely new management and a fresh business model to rid ourselves of the flawed one that exists currently. This part I believe has been severely underplayed, and the focus has been entirely on the cash.

agreed and this is a point ive been making all along

the board and some here have reduced this entirely down to guaranteed invested funds and contingencies for crazy disaster scenarios which ignores quite some substantial benefits we stood to gain

Delaying the inevitable, that's all this is.

indeed.

 

[Karmawave]

And all this garbage about why would we want such a petulant owner - who had a big sook and took his bat and ball and ran home - running the Knights blah blah blah...

Well the most petulant sports owner in the world was probably the late George Steinbrenner from the New York Yankees, and they're pretty decent.

If we were 5% of something like the New York Yankees we'd be doing alright so lets not overplay the owner personality thing too much because that's the least important thing in all of this.

 

[macavity]

im stating facts mac

:lol:

Did Tinkler, or did he not, withdraw a fundamental part of the offer?

 

[Karmawave]

:lol:

Did Tinkler, or did he not, withdraw a fundamental part of the offer?

Fundamental, but how important was it really in the grand scheme of things?

Enough to label the entire proposal a ' mirage ' and subsequently kill off all chances of an agreement?

 

[Rusty]

And all this garbage about why would we want such a petulant owner - who had a big sook and took his bat and ball and ran home - running the Knights blah blah blah...

Well the most petulant sports owner in the world was probably the late George Steinbrenner from the New York Yankees, and they're pretty decent.

If we were 5% of something like the New York Yankees we'd be doing alright so lets not overplay the owner personality thing too much because that's the least important thing in all of this.

Karmawave, you are the only one making any sense. I agree with you 100%

 

[B-dos]

:lol:

Did Tinkler, or did he not, withdraw a fundamental part of the offer?

i already answered your question mac

im not denying that

though carry on and ignore the point ive made if you like.

 

[COB]

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.[/QUOTE]

Basically the majority of the above describes what the knights have been doing with Nathan Tinklers money for the last 3 years ...

 

[Serc]

Fundamental, but how important was it really in the grand scheme of things?

Enough to label the entire proposal a ' mirage ' and subsequently kill off all chances of an agreement?

Labelling it a mirage might have not been the most appropriate thing to say...however the bottom line is, that for all Tinklers (apparent) good intentions, he (apparently), on a number of occasions, was not willing to put a number of those good intentions on the record, in writing and to commit to those promises by signing on the dotted line.

Would you let someone take over something like this on little more than a "trust me, mate" ?

 

[Serc]

What if it rains on game day 7 times a year after they've just borrowed $1M from the fund?

It will still hurt them like any other club, but it won't hurt them as much as it has in the past, as they are now much better prepared for that than they ever have been

 

[Karmawave]

Would you let someone take over something like this on little more than a "trust me, mate" ?

Yeah I would actually, because to put it simply, we are asking for more than we really have a right to ask for.

Well not ' we '. Let's just say Burro and Tew are, because like I mentioned in another thread, I'd be more than happy to sell the club to Tinkler by an agreement to clear our debts alone, an agreement to own it for 10 years, and an agreement to keep the Knights brand as is in Newcastle.

I am left speechless how this minimum spend issue is so big, because I know of no other sporting transaction in the world - when it comes to private ownership - that ever comes with a clause to spend a minimum ' x ' amount of dollars on the sports team.

It's ridiculous.

 

[slotmachine]

It will still hurt them like any other club, but it won't hurt them as much as it has in the past, as they are now much better prepared for that than they ever have been

From the information I have seen, the patrons trust is no different to an overdraft, except there are presumably no fees or interest.

 

[slotmachine]

I'd be more than happy to sell the club to Tinkler by an agreement to clear our debts alone, an agreement to own it for 10 years, and an agreement to keep the Knights brand as is in Newcastle.

Haha, I said the same thing to a bloke at work today, except it was "clear the debt + $1."

Also, I was really looking forward to cheaper ticket prices. Loved what Tinkler did with the Jets ticketing.

$10 GA went down a treat.

 

[Alex28]

I am left speechless how this minimum spend issue is so big, because I know of no other sporting transaction in the world - when it comes to private ownership - that ever comes with a clause to spend a minimum ' x ' amount of dollars on the sports team.

It's ridiculous.

Why did he commit to it if it is so ridiculous? It is only an issue because he committed to it, then changed the ground rules later on.

If he didn't mention that and said he'd spend what was needed, then people would have probably voted for it any way. He set up the bait of the $100 Million figure. This is his problem, and nobody elses.