Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-knight-in-shining-armour-20110225-1b8ns.html
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...r-knights-come-at-a-price-20110225-1b8ih.htmlTinkler's millions for Knights come at a price
Richard Hinds
February 26, 2011
WOULD Nathan Tinkler be good for the Newcastle Knights? The question would be answered by the factors that always distinguish the good private owners from the opportunists and self-aggrandisers. A terrible season and a sagging bottom line.
Tinkler has offered a guaranteed 10-year investment and, for what it's worth (on top of $100 million), clearly his heart beats red and blue. You got a sense of Tinkler's affection for the club this week when he reminisced about ''The Chief, Sarge and Butts''.
Such passion from a private owner can lead to impatience and impetuosity - potentially ruinous for a young or rebuilding team. It can also be the source of the vibrancy that shakes out the slackers and marginalises the crusty blazers who have put personal position before ultimate success.
Illustration: michaelmucci.com
The most important thing Newcastle fans need to hear from Tinkler, before a potential vote on the club's ownership structure, is that he has a viable and potentially profitable long-term strategy. A common theme with even the best-intentioned new private owner is to ignore the fact that owning a sports team is often like tipping a suitcase full of $100 notes off the Harbour Bridge. Some flee before the cash has hit the water.
Still, notwithstanding a massive plunge in minerals prices or sweeping bout of equine influenza, Tinkler can afford to put his money where his heart is. He is no Geoffrey Edelsten or Christopher Skase, the flamboyant pair whose costly failures eventually forced the AFL to abandon the private ownership model.
You can be sure of one thing - Tinkler is not staging a $100 million photo opportunity. This, you figure, would be an owner more comfortable having a post-match beer with the boys in the sheds than eating very small salmon from very large plates in the corporate dining room.
I recently attempted to arrange an interview with Tinkler through a publicist to ask him about his passion for sport. I was told he would not talk to the Herald. He was unhappy with the way some of his business dealings had been reported. To make a fortune in such the rough and tumble mining industry takes a hard head and a thick hide. As the old saying goes, you do not make omelette without breaking a few eggs. That was apparent this week in his robust dealings with the Knights board. But Tinkler, as is his right, insists his kitchen was much cleaner than the Herald has portrayed.
Still, it would be fascinating to know what, beyond an oft-stated sense of community responsibility, has inspired Tinkler to put $100 million on the table when others can watch the Knights for the price of a $191 ''bronze defender'' membership. Which raises one problem with Tinkler's offer - not of his making. Newcastle's white Knight would enter the game at a time when the NRL is attempting to convert historically passive, often couch-bound supporters into active members and game-day fans.
Club memberships have grown at a reasonable rate in recent years. Yet the income derived from memberships and reserved seats still falls proportionally far below those of the English Premier League, the American NFL or - as the NRL is loath to be reminded - the massively subscribed AFL.
The reasons for the shortfall in memberships and live attendances are well known. Leagues club models encouraged fans to ''support'' their club by shovelling money into pokies, rather than shuffling through the turnstiles. The disputable theory that league is ''a TV game''. The failure of apathetic or poorly resourced clubs to adequately market themselves.
It seems only the obvious dilemma - that even a much-improved TV rights deal and yet more gambling dollars will not necessarily ensure their continued prosperity - has prompted NRL clubs to act more assertively. Even then, you wonder if they are yet creating the type of bonds that endure inevitable poor seasons. Whether they are doing enough to give the game the audience it deserves.
Like Russell Crowe at Souths, Tinkler would bring with him a sense of hope and excitement to Newcastle. His wish of having ''the best 20 kids from the Hunter running out each week'' might, as he says, strengthen community ties to the club and increase membership sales.
But you wonder if, deep down, those fans who benefit from Tinkler or Crowe's largesse will feel like a premiership has been bought for them, not been created by them. And whether cashed-up private ownership models will dilute the message of those spruiking memberships at clubs with no movie stars or mining magnates.
Still, as a success-starved Bunny or an impatient Knight still wearing his Joey Johns jersey might tell you, a privately owned premiership would be better than no premiership - and no club - at all.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...mbers-prepare-to-be-heard-20110227-1ba33.html
these people you know have a metaphysical link to our voting membership, do they?
