Tinkler makes his final offer

[Alex28]

Get over my ego? Get over yourself. I'm for privatising as well - for the right reasons. However I'm not prepared to bad mouth our past to achieve it. That is my only issue with what you are saying. It's completely f***ed.

 

[Burwood]

The only reason we won two premierships is because of Johns- we would be Cronulla without him. I'm not disrespecting the club or its history, just stating what I think most people here realise.

 

[Alex28]

Everyone played their part mate. Johns couldn't cover all 13 starting spots and 4 bench positions. It is disrespectful to the calibre of guys that were in those teams.

 

[Rusty]

Everyone played their part mate. Johns couldn't cover all 13 starting spots and 4 bench positions. It is disrespectful to the calibre of guys that were in those teams.

Obviously, but what happened in the prelim games in 2002? When Johns got injured? I'll tell you in case you forgot, our finals game turned to sh*t. Just like every other game when Johns wasn't around. High calibre of players? Yes. Could they win games without Johns? No. We are talking about the halfback of the century here...

I'm not bad mouthing our past achievements I'm just being realistic and stating the facts.

 

[Alex28]

Us with Johns is the same as the Broncos with Lockyer, or the Tigers with Prince, or the Eagles with Lyon. All won premierships, all had dominant players. That is a fact of life. You can write off every successful team ever based on that logic.

 

[cram]

As a result of this topic I just rewatched the 2001 Final against Cronulla. I was at the ground on that day and watching the reply made me recall how close we were to having all three grades in the grandfinal.

Watching the game again my memory was frefreshed and whilst Johns steered us around the ground that day he became very frustrated at times and was kept fairly contained. What it did remind me however, was that the victory was very much a team effort.

 

[cram]

double

 

[Rusty]

Us with Johns is the same as the Broncos with Lockyer, or the Tigers with Prince, or the Eagles with Lyon. All won premierships, all had dominant players. That is a fact of life. You can write off every successful team ever based on that logic.

Exactly. All won premierships with dominant players. Therefore, would never have won premierships without them. We had the most dominant player.

Now if we had Tinkler on board, we would draw dominant players to club. He is a business man who simply wants his business to succeed. The only way he can achieve this is if we can field a competitive team.

I'm not sure why he is being portrayed as having ulterior motives.

 

[Alex28]

Is he being portrayed as having ulterior motives? I don't think that is even been debated here.

Will dominant players come to Newcastle because of Tinkler? We had the cash to pay these players this year, and they did not come. It is debatable that they will come just because we have a new owner. Plenty of things need to change - not just a shiny new owner.

 

[Rusty]

Yes, they didn't come. Why?

An international soccer player in Beckham came to Newcastle and played in front of a sell out crowd. He took over the Jets 3 months ago. IMO shows his commitment to the Jets and likewise the commitment and support from the people up in Newcastle. What more can you ask for?

 

[macavity]

Yes, they didn't come. Why?

An international soccer player in Beckham came to Newcastle and played in front of a sell out crowd. He took over the Jets 3 months ago. IMO shows his commitment to the Jets and likewise the commitment and support from the people up in Newcastle. What more can you ask for?

 

[Joker's Wild]

As a result of this topic I just rewatched the 2001 Final against Cronulla. I was at the ground on that day and watching the reply made me recall how close we were to having all three grades in the grandfinal.

Watching the game again my memory was frefreshed and whilst Johns steered us around the ground that day he became very frustrated at times and was kept fairly contained. What it did remind me however, was that the victory was very much a team effort.

Ha ha I remember one of my mates commenting to me at the end of that game "Dude, 10 min ago you wanted Joeys balls in a vice for making such stupid plays, now he's your messiah"

Just highlights that with all the magic Joey could produce, there was plenty of "a bridge to far" moments too. That 2001 side was special across the park. Not sure we would have won the premiership if even 1 of our starting 13 wernt there. A true example of a champion team

 

[Alex28]

Yes, they didn't come. Why?

An international soccer player in Beckham came to Newcastle and played in front of a sell out crowd. He took over the Jets 3 months ago. IMO shows his commitment to the Jets and likewise the commitment and support from the people up in Newcastle. What more can you ask for?

They didn't come for various reasons. It wasn't all the Knights fault, but yes they should cop some of the blame.

But seriously...yes Tinkler put on a pretty pointless exhibition match against a pretty pointless (in the stature of world football) American soccer team featuring a well past it player. What is your point?

 

[Rusty]

They didn't come for various reasons. It wasn't all the Knights fault, but yes they should cop some of the blame.

But seriously...yes Tinkler put on a pretty pointless exhibition match against a pretty pointless (in the stature of world football) American soccer team featuring a well past it player. What is your point?

Pointless? When was the last time we had a sell out crowd in a supposedly mad crazy rugby league town? Were we even able to achieve this with a large portion of the stadium under construction? I obviously have to spell it our for you. He's powerful and by the looks of things determined. You want the Knights to be a sporting mecca, he can make it happen.

 

[Alex28]

Let me spell it out to you. We have had his support for the last year. He has offered to help get the big names to the club. As you quite correctly pointed out previously, we didn't get the big names.

This isn't soccer and paying David Beckham $3 Million to fill a stadium isn't an option for the Knights. It is going to take more than his presence and cash to fix what is wrong here, because we have had that for a few years now and it hasn't worked yet.

 

[Rusty]

Let me spell it out to you. We have had his support for the last year. He has offered to help get the big names to the club. As you quite correctly pointed out previously, we didn't get the big names.

This isn't soccer and paying David Beckham $3 Million to fill a stadium isn't an option for the Knights. It is going to take more than his presence and cash to fix what is wrong here, because we have had that for a few years now and it hasn't worked yet.

In what capacity? How has he offered to get the big names to the club?
What's it going to take Alex? Do you really think the club can 'fix' whats wrong? For f**** sake they can't even employ someone to design a jersey that won't make the boys look like pansies. Sad state of affairs...

 

[Alex28]

I'm not the one pretending a new owner and a bunch of cash is all of a sudden going to turn us in to a power house.

What it will actually take is a change in attitude from everybody - from the players right through to the management. Despite what it appears from the Jets you can't just throw money at a problem and make it disappear.

There is no doubt that cash will help us do things - however I haven't actually seen anything suggesting that Tinkler will actually give us more cash to do anything. I have seen a scenario that gives us a limited amount of cash but puts other cash streams at risk. There is no room for assumptions here. We can't just assume that he will give us anything and everything we want - or even need.

What it will take is the management and the owner singing from the same songbook. I haven't seen anything yet that suggests that is the case.

Rusty - I agree with you that privatisation is probably the best thing for the club. But don't you want some assurances around that? Don't you want to know how he is going to achieve his aims and assurances that he will commit the resources to making that happen?

The difference is that I will respect the past of this club and not degrade our achievements of the past in an effort to justify a different future.

 

[Rusty]

I'm not the one pretending a new owner and a bunch of cash is all of a sudden going to turn us in to a power house.

What it will actually take is a change in attitude from everybody - from the players right through to the management. Despite what it appears from the Jets you can't just throw money at a problem and make it disappear.

There is no doubt that cash will help us do things - however I haven't actually seen anything suggesting that Tinkler will actually give us more cash to do anything. I have seen a scenario that gives us a limited amount of cash but puts other cash streams at risk. There is no room for assumptions here. We can't just assume that he will give us anything and everything we want - or even need.

What it will take is the management and the owner singing from the same songbook. I haven't seen anything yet that suggests that is the case.

Rusty - I agree with you that privatisation is probably the best thing for the club. But don't you want some assurances around that? Don't you want to know how he is going to achieve his aims and assurances that he will commit the resources to making that happen?

The difference is that I will respect the past of this club and not degrade our achievements of the past in an effort to justify a different future.

I don't want to continue debating this with you because I would just be repeating myself. In the end I think we both want what is best for the club because that is obviously what we all want, hopefully the club makes the right decision.

 

[macavity]

Bump

 

[perverse]

lolRusty.