Patron's Trust

[Karmawave]

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

There only had to be 2 major terms apart from a set sales price.

1. That he had to own the team for ( x ) amount of years. ( Preferably something like 10 )

2. That the Knights remained in Newcastle and playing under the same colours/brand at EAS.

If Tinkler then decided to sell on to someone else after say 10 years, that isn't abnormal you know mate. This happens across all sports from everywhere around the world. The new buyer, like Tinkler, wouldn't be buying the club because they want to see it fail after all.

American sports teams change their owners all the time ( well not ALL the time because usually when an owner buys a team they have a vested passionate interest in it for a very long time ), and they all have a passion for their team and the sport they are participating in.

If Tinkler were to on-sell after a set time period, so what? As long as the basic terms are met such as the team name/location. I'm sure Tinkler would not want to see this change himself being a proud Novocastrian ( which he clearly is ).

He's an astute businessman and no fool. Petulant yes, but still smart just the same.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Agreed mate but as far as I could see, or that has been reported, neither of those 2 points were set in stone on the final offer.

 

[Karmawave]

Agreed mate but as far as I could see, or that has been reported, neither of those 2 points were set in stone on the final offer.

No they weren't, but they should have been the key focus, instead of all these other intangibles that ultimately bought the whole thing crashing down.

 

[Holla if ya hear me]

Was reading in the papes....soooooo..the patrons money is there BUt if they use any of it they have to pay it back at the end of the time(4yrs)...Burreston didnt mention that in this mornings radio interview on nxfm....wonder if its a sticking point..

 

[perverse]

hmmm *scratches chin*

perhaps we do have to trace this right back to the first offer. why were all these complicated stipulations brought in? we had the initial offer of $10mill wasn't it? to me, that offer seemed pretty bloody low at the time, and i wasn't overly thrilled about the deal to say the least if memory serves. when the new offer came through and it first calculated out to be about $30mill i was like wow, we're probably talking overs now... but i have maintained all along that the main thing i liked about the new deal vs the old deal was the 10 year commitment, moreso than the money.

your proposal does account for that, Karma. i can't help but think if Tinkler just put a bit more on the table and added the length of ownership commitment then we could have been happy with that. you do have a point. why all the complex stipulations? i mean, i have a massive problem that he has changed the deal that he put forward, but i do see your point about why it was structured in such a manner to begin with, when the first offer was infinitely simpler (and a lot cheaper looking to be fair, on the surface).

i knew there was a reason i wanted you back.

 

[Rusty]

Was reading in the papes....soooooo..the patrons money is there BUt if they use any of it they have to pay it back at the end of the time(4yrs)...Burreston didnt mention that in this mornings radio interview on nxfm....wonder if its a sticking point..

I laughed when he used the word 'donation'...more like a loan you f**kwit.

 

[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

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

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse with what I said...what I meant was that in any given season, if it literally rains on game day more often than normal, the Knights are (as of a couple of years ago) much better prepared for that than they ever have been.

As the club has probably relied on gate takings more than any other NRL club (someone correct me if I'm wrong on that, I'm pretty sure nobody relies on it more than us) being better prepared for varying crowds is a critical area for them! This includes those glorious sunny Sunday afternoon games, when they might get a bigger crowd than they would otherwise expect!

 

[Serc]

White knights keen to recruit Tinkler
Brett Keeble
February 23, 2011

KNIGHTS benefactor Andrew Poole has invited would-be owner Nathan Tinkler to join him and two other multimillionaire businessmen on the patrons' trust.
Donating between $6 million and $10m to the NRL club in the next four years, the trust has been convened in the past two days as a funding alternative after Tinkler, frustrated that Knights management had queried details of his reported 10-year, $100-million privatisation proposal, withdrew his offer on Monday morning.
Knights chief executive Steve Burraston said a patrons' trust model was initially investigated more than a year ago, was explained to members at the club's annual meeting in May last year and was considered by the board on January 19 when it agreed Tinkler's proposal was the preferred model to present to members.
Poole said the trust funds had to be spent in areas such as junior development, community programs, special projects, capital expenditure and improving resources.
''That would release money already being spent in those areas to be spent in other areas,'' he said. ''Our money goes over and above anything that the Knights have now.''
Poole explained he and the other two patrons had committed to donating $2m each in the next four years - a minimum of $6m - and there was scope for two more to join them and extend the total to $10m. He said the other two patrons were maintaining their anonymity for now ''but I can absolutely vouch for the integrity and worth of these people''.
The trust was structured to facilitate five ''units'' worth $500,000 annually, and Poole and the other two had each taken up one unit and guaranteed their contributions for four years.
''That money is paid up front, every year, into a trust account,'' Poole said. ''We decided the minimum position was three patrons before we had something to take forward, so ideally we'd like to get five, but three are ironclad.
''The money is in, ready to go, and now that it's become public, I'd like to think there will be another like-minded soul or two out there prepared to join us.
''I'm happy it might even be someone who has been in the press a lot about the Knights in the last day or so, who may like to stand beside the patrons. It would be nice if he did. Or perhaps a group of like-minded people might like to band together a unit of half a million per annum.''
Burraston and Poole insisted the three patrons were making donations, not loans, and therefore they expected no return on their outlays.
Burraston said the guaranteed donation of at least $1.5m a year for the next four years meant the patrons' trust had surpassed Tinkler's now withdrawn offer as the preferred choice. ''As we've progressed, we think that the patrons' trust is the superior model,'' he said.
Tinkler's withdrawn offer, the patrons' trust and a members' information session next Monday will be discussed at a Knights board meeting tonight.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...s-keen-to-recruit-tinkler-20110222-1b44h.html

 

[macavity]

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.

who gets the "purchase price" ?

that is what is wrong with that.

 

[macavity]

hmmm *scratches chin*

perhaps we do have to trace this right back to the first offer. why were all these complicated stipulations brought in? we had the initial offer of $10mill wasn't it? to me, that offer seemed pretty bloody low at the time, and i wasn't overly thrilled about the deal to say the least if memory serves. when the new offer came through and it first calculated out to be about $30mill i was like wow, we're probably talking overs now... but i have maintained all along that the main thing i liked about the new deal vs the old deal was the 10 year commitment, moreso than the money.

your proposal does account for that, Karma. i can't help but think if Tinkler just put a bit more on the table and added the length of ownership commitment then we could have been happy with that. you do have a point. why all the complex stipulations? i mean, i have a massive problem that he has changed the deal that he put forward, but i do see your point about why it was structured in such a manner to begin with, when the first offer was infinitely simpler (and a lot cheaper looking to be fair, on the surface).

i knew there was a reason i wanted you back.

without boring you all to death, under the corps act we can only get a reasonable outcome with a "complex" deal.

the offer as put by Tinkler in his one and a half page letter was reasonable and supported - the "simple" answer is he honours it and it is put to members.

 

[cram]

Maughan threatens to resign from Knights board


IAN KIRKWOOD
23 Feb, 2011 04:00 AM
FOUNDATION Knights director Leigh Maughan said he would resign from the board if chairman Rob Tew and chief executive Steve Burraston tried to ‘‘ram through’’ the patrons’ trust funding model without putting it to members.
Maughan insisted that the patron’s trust was a loan, and he expected the model to be put to tonight’s regular monthly Knights board meeting .
‘‘I’m going to refuse to vote for it,’’ Maughan said.
‘‘It’s a prick of a deal because you wind up with a debt that has to be repaid with interest.
‘‘They can talk about different versions but the copy that I have been given, which was distributed through the board, talks about paying back the money.
‘‘If there are four or five people and each puts in half a million [dollars] or a million a year over five years that could be $20million plus interest. It’s ridiculous.’’
Maughan said the board was split on the patrons’ trust model but he feared it would get up by a slim majority - perhaps by the chairman’s casting vote – if it went to the board.
‘‘Nathan Tinkler’s a bloke worth almost a billion,’’ Maughan said.
‘‘I don’t see a bloke spending millions to get in the door of the club then not spending more money to make things worthwhile. People whose opinions I trust say I’m wise to give them some room to move. We need the bloke in the door and to jam the patrons’ trust in, just to keep him out, is extremely bad form.
‘‘If it comes to a vote tomorrow night I feel very strongly about it and I will march outside the board and become Joan of Arc. I’m not the only one, others are of the same mind.’’
Maughan said Tinkler’s reasons for wanting to back the Knights were not that important.
‘‘If he spends the money he invests as a benefactor of course he might want political favours – that’s fine by me – but we’re not involved with playing politics. If his image is lifted and he can get favours in the business world good luck to the bloke but it’s not a pay-back situation. We won’t owe him a penny but the patrons’ trust is a loan.’’
Maughan said the club was not the only party at fault in this week’s events.
He put Tinkler’s telephone call to former Knight Kade Snowdon as a ‘‘lack of experience’’. ‘‘This sort of thing goes on but coming out of the blue when the fella is just about to walk into a press conference [to announce a new deal with the Sharks] just shows a lack of experience and judgment but have no doubt it goes on.’’

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...ens-to-resign-from-knights-board/2083996.aspx#

 

[macavity]

actually I have spent the morning thinking, and I think I can see a very simple way to get a good deal together. Let me work on it.

 

[macavity]

oh, and Maughan comes across like he has NFI what he is talking about.

does he expect members to be consulted about sponsorships, staff appointments, bank overdrafts as well?

ridiculous.

 

[Jobdog]

Was reading in the papes....soooooo..the patrons money is there BUt if they use any of it they have to pay it back at the end of the time(4yrs)...Burreston didnt mention that in this mornings radio interview on nxfm....wonder if its a sticking point..

I laughed when he used the word 'donation'...more like a loan you f**kwit.

Wrong, and well, wrong

 

[Karmawave]

who gets the "purchase price" ?

that is what is wrong with that.

The purchase price would be spread across the football development in the area, pay off any accumulated losses, go towards upgrading our staff/facilities across the entire region etc etc.

Of course I understand that it works in theory but not easily in practice.

 

[macavity]

The purchase price would be spread across the football development in the area, pay off any accumulated losses, go towards upgrading our staff/facilities across the entire region etc etc.

Of course I understand that it works in theory but not easily in practice.

So your solution is that Tinkler pays the "purchase price" to himself, to use on his football club.

Not easily? It doesn't work at all - at least not without the guarantees that you would remove!

That is my point mate.

We are a company limited by guarantee - we cannot "pay" monies to our members. On winding up, the club's residual assets (ie any left over cash) are transferred to the Real NRL.

In brief, my very simple solution is for Tinkler to assume all assets and liabilities of the club, the limited by guarantee company be wound up, and a sum of $10mil (or whatever) be paid to the Real NRL - who will hold it in an interest bearing account, and it will be the reserve purchase price for a first-right-of-refusal purchase agreement to be executed between Tinkler and the Real NRL.

No guarantees, no complexity, nothing - just a first right of refusal agreement on sale - allowing for transfer of the club (and the first right of refusal purchase agreement) to a related entity, etc, but with all of the usual terms.

Let him do what he wants with the club otherwise.

Only other possible issue is junior funding as that is a core plank of our current purpose. Surely that one is easily solved too with an agreement between Tinkler and the Real NRL.

Thoughts?

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

oh, and Maughan comes across like he has NFI what he is talking about.

does he expect members to be consulted about sponsorships, staff appointments, bank overdrafts as well?

ridiculous.

Nah just a deal that closes the door on privitization and us becomming a powerhouse Macavity, and as a board member this person is probably sick about being kept in the dark while the Tew and Burro show rolls on.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

So your solution is that Tinkler pays the "purchase price" to himself, to use on his football club.

Not easily? It doesn't work at all - at least not without the guarantees that you would remove!

That is my point mate.

We are a company limited by guarantee - we cannot "pay" monies to our members. On winding up, the club's residual assets (ie any left over cash) are transferred to the Real NRL.

In brief, my very simple solution is for Tinkler to assume all assets and liabilities of the club, the limited by guarantee company be wound up, and a sum of $10mil (or whatever) be paid to the Real NRL - who will hold it in an interest bearing account, and it will be the reserve purchase price for a first-right-of-refusal purchase agreement to be executed between Tinkler and the Real NRL.

No guarantees, no complexity, nothing - just a first right of refusal agreement on sale - allowing for transfer of the club (and the first right of refusal purchase agreement) to a related entity, etc, but with all of the usual terms.

Let him do what he wants with the club otherwise.

Only other possible issue is junior funding as that is a core plank of our current purpose. Surely that one is easily solved too with an agreement between Tinkler and the Real NRL.

Thoughts?

That sounds exceptionally good Macavity.

Well done.

 

[Alex28]

oh, and Maughan comes across like he has NFI what he is talking about.

does he expect members to be consulted about sponsorships, staff appointments, bank overdrafts as well?

ridiculous.

Where there is a fundemental change to the operation and future of the business which he will have to vote on, then yeah he should be informed.

I'd rather he resign than vote on something he doesn't understand.

I'd say that will be taken out of his hands on Monday in any case.

 

[Alex28]

In brief, my very simple solution is for Tinkler to assume all assets and liabilities of the club, the limited by guarantee company be wound up, and a sum of $10mil (or whatever) be paid to the Real NRL - who will hold it in an interest bearing account, and it will be the reserve purchase price for a first-right-of-refusal purchase agreement to be executed between Tinkler and the Real NRL.

No guarantees, no complexity, nothing - just a first right of refusal agreement on sale - allowing for transfer of the club (and the first right of refusal purchase agreement) to a related entity, etc, but with all of the usual terms.

Let him do what he wants with the club otherwise.

Only other possible issue is junior funding as that is a core plank of our current purpose. Surely that one is easily solved too with an agreement between Tinkler and the Real NRL.

Thoughts?

Sounds good. Email Tinky pronto!