Patron's Trust

[perverse]

exactly. had he never mentioned the $100mill, which he used as a big number to wow us in the first place, then we wouldn't be having any conversation about the minimum spend at all. he promised it, we're just asking that he delivers on his word. once again, not a big ask at all. it's a basic principal.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Well Alex apparently its our problem because instead of getting players like Kade Snowden, TLL, and Idris as signings and Bennett to coach we'll probably end up with Adam Woolnough, Matt White and Shane Elford and resign Stone!

 

[Karmawave]

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.

Maybe this was a pre-requisite of making an offer as requested by Burro and Tew?

Speculation only, but entirely feasible.

If so, they had no right to request it at all.

I would love someone to tell me any other sporting team in the world in any sport, when their team changes ownership, or becomes privatised, has the kind of stipulations that were in these Tinkler negotiations. It is always a case of ' ok this is what the cost of the club is - and agree to a sale price '. No stipulations, no pre-requisited spending etc etc.

I was sitting on the fence yesterday, but today, the more I think about it, the more it makes me mad because in my opinion, I believe Burro and Tew have made it extraordinarily difficult for Tinkler to own the club, and that its quite possible their intentions were to enact this Patrons Model all along so the flawed business model they currently oversee can continue treading water.

 

[Alex28]

Well Alex apparently its our problem because instead of getting players like Kade Snowden, TLL, and Idris as signings and Bennett to coach we'll probably end up with Adam Woolnough, Matt White and Shane Elford and resign Stone!

Ah good old Baron...ignoring what is a very good point and deflecting it through sarcasm.

Just what I would expect.

Who was it who brought up the $100 Million/10 Year guarantee mate - the board, or Nathan Tinkler? Simple question.

 

[Alex28]

Maybe this was a pre-requisite of making an offer as requested by Burro and Tew?

Speculation only, but entirely feasible.

If so, they had no right to request it at all.

I would love someone to tell me any other sporting team in the world in any sport, when their team changes ownership, or becomes privatised, has the kind of stipulations that were in these Tinkler negotiations.

I was sitting on the fence yesterday, but today, the more I think about it, the more it makes me mad because in my opinion, I believe Burro and Tew have made it extraordinarily difficult for Tinkler to own the club, and that its quite possible their intentions were to enact this Patrons Model all along so the flawed business model they currently oversee can continue treading water.

They are responsible to the current owners of the Newcastle Knights. They have a responsibility that the new owner is going to adequately fund the club. They have the right to ask whatever the hell they want Karma.

It was a stipulation because he put it in there. Simple. If he didn't want to put it in there, and worse still if he didn't want to commit to it, don't offer it. Simple.

There is equal blame here as to why this deal fell over. Yes, Burro & Tew probably had the Patron's Trust happening in the background and may have wanted it in the end rather than Tinkler's offer.

However who demands someone accepts an offer before the final offer has even been presented to the club? Seriously?

 

[Karmawave]

There is equal blame here as to why this deal fell over. Yes, Burro & Tew probably had the Patron's Trust happening in the background and may have wanted it in the end rather than Tinkler's offer.

Completely agree the performances of both sides have been far less than acceptable.

Still don't feel the duo running a flawed business model that is $4M in debt have the rights to demand many of the things they are seen to be demanding to be frank.

 

[Alex28]

You know what? The 4 Million debt figure is a farce any way.

From the last set of financial figures:

Current Assets - $3,116,767

Less Current Liabilities - $5,088,570

Addback Income in Advance - $2,588,570

Would mean the actual debt at that time is actually $616,767 in credit. Give the club that $4 Million then if we collected everything we were owed, and paid everything we owe (including Tinky's $500K) and retained the income from membership and season tickets we have $4.6 Million in the Bank. More than enough to pay Hunter Venues turf bill and the Jets compo.

The $2,461,659 figure which is Accumulated Losses is funds we have lost, not owed. It is a bullsh*t figure bandied around to make the club look worse than it really is.

 

[red and blue]

I am just disapointed that the Tinkler bid didnt go through.

I just look at what the man has already done for the jets he is looking to offer Jason Culina 1million per year and was also after the likes of Micheal Owen.

This all from a game that he fell into knows nothing about and had never even been to a game.

The Knights on the other hand he has always had a passion for.

You could tell that the guy was excieted about the prospects of owning the club. That that he wanted to get in the ears of players before he even owned it.

I cant even imagine how much money this guy would really pump into this team he isnt a loser and would want to win at any cost. Maybe he should have just waited to it went through.

I cant really understand a reason the guy would want to take over the club just to put it in worse shape then what it is.

 

[slotmachine]

I cant really understand a reason the guy would want to take over the club just to put it in worse shape then what it is.

Don't tell that the the legions of narrow minded and suspicious members around here.

 

[macavity]

I am just disapointed that the Tinkler bid didnt go through.

Yes, most of us are very disappointed that he didn't follow through with his offer.

 

[slotmachine]

double

 

[Joker's Wild]

Don't tell that the the legions of narrow minded and suspicious members around here.

Who is saying that he would?

Jeezus mate, all we are asking is for him to honour what he said he was offering. You let him take over with out any guarantees that he will fulfill his obligations, no matter how slim the perceived chance, and you are a very big fool business wise.

 

[slotmachine]

Jeezus mate, all we are asking is for him to honour what he said he was offering. You let him take over with out any guarantees that he will fulfill his obligations, no matter how slim the perceived chance, and you are a very big fool business wise.

You're obviously happy to support a mediocre club.

I aspire to better things.

 

[Alex28]

You're obviously happy to support a mediocre club.

I aspire to better things.

So you are happy to sell the club to a guy who won't stand by his word?

 

[slotmachine]

So you are happy to sell the club to a guy who won't stand by his word?

If the alternative is to watch us struggle from year to year and rarely, if ever, taste on-field success?

In that case, yes, I would.

 

[Alex28]

If the alternative is to watch us struggle from year to year and rarely, if ever, taste on-field success?

In that case, yes, I would.

Then you don't really know what you are getting do you. You don't know whether he is going to get sick of funding a club that can't make a profit if it is resourced the way it should be and just all of a sudden stop funding it.

Doesn't have to sell it because he isn't insolvent. Just run it a bit like Con Constantine ran the Jets.

Happy for that over what we have now?

 

[Big Tim]

What I find hypocritical in this whole thing is the TSG is concerned that "the board" is trying to find an issue with the worst case scenario where his offer of $100mil over 10 years is the worst case scenario for his pockets......

TBH the money going in doesnt bother me. As long as there is a written contract with TSG's pledge to grassroots football in the Hunter, and a clear buy back option if it all goes pear shaped I would be happy.

Fact: We are able to call for a EGM if we can get 100 signatures to question the board, and possibly overthrow them.

What if this isnt in the new constitution when Tinkler takes over no strings attached? Then what do we have in the running of this club?

As this isnt a fire sale, the Newcastle Knights hold the power in the negotiation.

/end contributing to discusion and resume making fun of arseclowns.

 

[Joker's Wild]

You're obviously happy to support a mediocre club.

I aspire to better things.

lol what?

No I dont want to support a mediocre club if it was my choice but fair dinkum mate that has absolutely zero to do with what I was trying to point out to you.

You cant just hand over a business to someone on faith and good intentions alone. You would get laughed at by your rivals and run out of town by your stakeholders.

 

[Karmawave]

You cant just hand over a business to someone on faith and good intentions alone. You would get laughed at by your rivals and run out of town by your stakeholders.

No, but usually a price is placed on the value of something, and that price is either met or passed onto someone else prepared to meet it. Pretty simple concept.

Not all of the terms and conditions crap that has been attached with this deal all along and all of these requirements to minimum spending.

What was wrong with:-

The Knights are worth ( insert amount ). You can buy them for this price with the only condition that you agree to keep the club as the Knights in Newcastle for ( enter amount ) of years.

Yay or nay.

I agree with the sentiment that no one buys a sports team to oversee it fail. Especially Tinkler. For all his issues with trainers and jockeys and whatever else in his horse racing, its still successful. Him changing trainers and having fallouts with them would be no different to changing the Knights rugby league coach.

Doesn't change the end outcome that he wants to succeed and win.

Ultimately Plan B seems so simple, and so could have been Plan A.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Yes mate, I agree

However in the unlikely event Tinkler decides its all too hard and pulls out after 2 years, under the most recent proposal he can sell it off to whomever with no obligation to stick to said proposal. The new owner could essentially do what they liked with the club and imo that is simply not acceptable