Patron's Trust

[Apey]

This is a load of tripe this rubbish about the Patrons Trust.

This was clearly always 2nd option to the Knights - or they wouldn't have been wanting to continue discussions with Tinkler as late as today ( Tinkler pulled out on the Knights - not vice versa ). Tew has been mentioned in a quote himself saying how much better Tinklers offer was in comparison.

*And if the Tinkler offer was so bad like Tew is now trying to play and this Patrons Model is so good - then why were the Knights not the ones to pull out of discussions with Tinkler?

* Why were the Knights still wanting to proceed with a meeting with Tinkler today at 2pm even after last nights press release, that quoted the Tew as remaining ' optimistic ' they would ' reach an agreement ' to present to members after today?

The Knights can play it any way they like post fallout but they come off looking just as bad as anyone else in all of this.

Some members will fall for it though.

Talk about media spin and getting the runner up cheque.

Eh?

By the sounds of things..

The original offer Tinkler made that we saw in the media and was 'outlined' to the Knights, the same one that was agreed to by the Knights 'in principal', was definitely (and obviously) superior.

The actual, elaborated, formalised offer was significantly less than the above and was deemed to be inferior to the Patrons' Trust.

I know we can't take it as gospel, or even as truth or fact, but if we were to believe the release by Burro & Tew, have you missed the notion that the offer has substantially changed (read: deteriorated)?

I suspect the reason the Knights still wanted to proceed with negotiations was so they were able to transform the actual offer back into the original offer/promise...

I'm not really taking sides though, Karma - it is hard for me to definitively do that when really I know very little about what actually happened, just explaining how I understood and interpreted it if Burro & Tew are being truthful... but I guess based on your post, you don't believe they are being truthful?

 

[Newynut]

Actually the meeting is on at 6.00pm at the Mark Hotel. There will be if they have enough there, a vote of no confidence in the board, If they get 100 vote for it the board will be stood down.
It will be on fox sports live. so I am told.

 

[COB]

Has anyone considered a vote of no confidence in the board may be the PATRONS TRUST best chance to get a fair hearing ?

Just throwing it out there - a new board is not tarnished by the past.

Karmawaves post spells out exactly that while ever Mr Tew and Burro are telling the story - the patrons trust is doomed due to the baggage and propaganda that will be against it.

As a club we need the outcome of this to be a "fork in the road" moment - anything less and we become a factional mess ala eels, sharks etc.

- COB

 

[COB]

Has anyone considered a vote of no confidence in the board may be the PATRONS TRUST best chance to get a fair hearing ?

Just throwing it out there - a new board is not tarnished by the past.

Karmawaves post spells out exactly that while ever Mr Tew and Burro are telling the story - the patrons trust is doomed to not getting up.

As a club we need the outcome of this to be a "fork in the road" moment -( both options debated and voted ) anything less and we become a factional mess ala eels, sharks etc.

- COB

 

[Karmawave]

Apey, if the offer had deteriorated so badly, why would the Knights still want to proceed with meetings with Tinkler? That's my only question.

I just think the Knights come off looking really stupid the way they have gone about this post breakdown.

It is kinda like a breakup where one person breaks up the relationship, and the rejected person tries their very best to make it look like they are the ones breaking up with the originator just to hold some kind of credibility.

That's what the Knights are doing.

Tinkler broke up with the Knights, not vice versa - so lets not lose sight of that.

 

[roopy]

Burraston said on the radio that the patrons trust doesn't need members approval - it's basically donations with no strings attached - nothing to approve.

 

[cram]

Apey, if the offer had deteriorated so badly, why would the Knights still want to proceed with meetings with Tinkler? That's my only question.

I just think the Knights come off looking really stupid the way they have gone about this post breakdown.

It is kinda like a breakup where one person breaks up the relationship, and the rejected person tries their very best to make it look like they are the ones breaking up with the originator just to hold some kind of credibility.

That's what the Knights are doing.

Tinkler broke up with the Knights, not vice versa - so lets not lose sight of that.

So why would they still want to meet with him? Well maybe to try and get the original deal back on the table and lets no forget the Knights went public yesterday with their concerns they just provided more detail at 2.30pm this afternoon.

Yes, you are right Tinkler broke the deal off Why? Was it all getting a bit sticky for him, were questions being asked that he did not like because he could not answer them?

Questions will need to be asked of Tew and Burraston as well before I make any decision I want all the information presented but unfortunately we will only get the biased opinions of the interested parties, and that includes Tinkler.

Also on Tinkler breaking it off, well that is the best position for him to be in, and he can now sit back and hope that the club falls into his lap on his terms. A clearly planned and calculated risk, one he was prepared to take.

What might bugger him however, is that he needs to realise that the people screaming for blood on talk back radio and the forums are not the ones who can influence this he needs members on board so the competition begins to win the hearts and minds of members the ones with the ultimate power in this.

 

[perverse]

Burraston said on the radio that the patrons trust doesn't need members approval - it's basically donations with no strings attached - nothing to approve.

seems odd. not really a privitisation offer, then.

pretty stupid for Burro to come out and say that, though... the last thing he should be telling the members right at this moment is "we can do this without you". they may not listen to the benefits beyond that.

 

[COB]

Burraston said on the radio that the patrons trust doesn't need members approval - it's basically donations with no strings attached - nothing to approve.

So in that case , hypothetically come the next board meeting, there is nothing to stop Tinkler running a full ticket of board members running on the agenda of him owning the club.

They get voted onto the board and then he can buy the club - which by then will be debt free thanks to the patrons.

The patrons who have dropped in all the coin basically have no say in this beyond 1 vote each at the board election.


- COB

 

[roopy]

So in that case , hypothetically come the next board meeting, there is nothing to stop Tinkler running a full ticket of board members running on the agenda of him owning the club.

They get voted onto the board and then he can buy the club - which by then will be debt free thanks to the patrons.

The patrons who have dropped in all the coin basically have no say in this beyond 1 vote each at the board election.


- COB

what???!!
He said they are having a meeting to explain it, but it isn't a change to the business model or ownership - it's just some people giving us donations.
The only difference will be that we will have some money - obligation free.

The Tinkler thing was a total change in the business model and ownership.

 

[Karmawave]

Yes, you are right Tinkler broke the deal off Why? Was it all getting a bit sticky for him, were questions being asked that he did not like because he could not answer them?

Well we are all speculating here, so here's another one to answer the above question...

Maybe Tinkler felt that the forces that were Tew/Burro were working against his offer because he felt that while the two of them may have shown support for his offer publicly, that really the Knights duo were angling towards a Patrons Model all along. That the Patrons Model better served their own needs.

After all this has been hashed about for a long, long time, and its no secret really that Burro really wanted to see a Patrons Model succeed.

Maybe the Knights were dragging out Tinkler negotiations intentionally to allow the powers behind the Patrons Model more time to get themselves sorted out? Clearly that would rile Tinkler and I don't blame him.

I mean, we're all speculating, but both the above points are reasonable suggestions as to WHY Tinkler pulled out just the same.

I certainly don't trust the spin coming out of the Knights right now that's for sure completely either.

 

[Alex28]

Can see what you are saying Karma.

So why does Tinkler water down his deal then? If he wants the club so badly and he knows that there is a rival offer out there, why does he water the deal down so badly?

I don't get it...

 

[Karmawave]

Can see what you are saying Karma.

So why does Tinkler water down his deal then? If he wants the club so badly and he knows that there is a rival offer out there, why does he water the deal down so badly?

I don't get it...

Well he has only watered down the deal so badly according to Tew/Burraston.

I guess we don't really know for sure what the real story is.

 

[cram]

I don't doubt their is spin coming out of both camps, but if you are going to speculate about the Knights board you have to speculate about Tinkler as well.

I don't trust any of them because if I can't see it or touch it I remain skeptical.

 

[slotmachine]

Why did Burro go on holidays for a few weeks, days after the most important deal in the Knights history was put on the table?

 

[cram]

Why did Burro go on holidays for a few weeks, days after the most important deal in the Knights history was put on the table?

Who cares :roll:

 

[slotmachine]

Who cares :roll:

Just thought it might have helped if the CEO was in the country to assess the deal.

 

[Apey]

Just said on NBN news that there are three patrons who would be happy to donate $2M - $4M over a period of 4 years... correct me if I heard that wrong, I only had it on in the background

 

[Alex28]

Well he has only watered down the deal so badly according to Tew/Burraston.

I guess we don't really know for sure what the real story is.

Mate...surely...would you go to the members and media and highlight where the deal is watered down if it wasn't and Tinkler could prove they were lying?

Surely you wouldn't...

This is what I'm finding so unbelievable about it. Tinkler hasn't exactly come out and said that they were lying about his offer...

 

[Alex28]

Just thought it might have helped if the CEO was in the country to assess the deal.

Not really essential if he wasn't going to be part of the future of the club...