Tinkler proposal back on (take 3)

[Serc]

I would like to watch the full Foxtel interview...including the questions asked of Burro.

This is because all the quotes in that article (even on their own and out of context) are more or less all facts. Maybe you could suggest that he could've given a bit more of a positive spin on things, however nobody can really say anything without knowing what the Fox panel asked him.

I will say this though, they sound like responses to the typical questions like "the Knights have 4 million/3 million/2.3 million debt" or "the Knights appear to be in dire straits and likely to go under at any moment, surely this is the deal that would save the club" etc etc. Its not hard to imagine these questions as these are the sorts of ones that the media have been asking regularly for the past 3 months.

Anyway, while I am still in favour of the TSG offer I'm not sure if this move will impress other members. Some may see it as the board pandering to TSG's bully boy style wishes while they still have zero control of the club...especially given there are no quotes in that article where he actually mentions the Patron's Trust, and I watched the entire interview on the Sunday Footy Show and it didn't get a mention there either.

 

[Big Tim]

Surprisingly Tallis asked him the only probing question "Are the board getting mbehind this deal and shouting it from the rooftps" or something along those lines.

Unfortunately Burro dodged it, and then Freeman went on with some crap and it never came back to it.

1 question that I would have loved to have heard his answer.

 

[perverse]

there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Burro was using very negative language in regards to the proposal on Monday night. stood out to me, big time. the panel was clearly trying to milk some sort of positive response from him, and it was blatently not forthcoming. i thought he was negative under a thin veil of impartiality.

 

[Serc]

shame, thanks fellas, guess thats the best that most of us will have to go off.

 

[slotmachine]

He was negative under a thin veil of impartiality.

Beautifully put.

 

[Alex28]

I think you may have misconstrued my meaning.

I wasn't aiming to belittle the work that Macavity does for the club or question his support of the Tinkler deal. If I came across that way I apologise.

I don't think anybody misconstrued your meaning. You meant it as a cheap shot at Mac. You just don't have the balls to stand by it when someone called you out on it.

I was having a light hearted dig at his contant ascertation that Burraston is not anti-privatisation.

Utter bullsh*t. It was a cheap and uncalled for shot. If you are going to dish it out, don't backtrack like a little bitch.

 

[slotmachine]

I don't think anybody misconstrued your meaning. You meant it as a cheap shot at Mac. You just don't have the balls to stand by it when someone called you out on it.


Utter bullsh*t. It was a cheap and uncalled for shot. If you are going to dish it out, don't backtrack like a little bitch.

Not my problem your comprehension isn't up to scratch.

And I fail to see how it was a cheap shot. Macavity has consistently defended Burraston against criticism that he is anti-privitisation.

I stand by my comments. I would still like to know if he has changed his opinion in light of recent events.

 

[Alex28]

Try reading some of his comments and you will then comprehend yourself that he has met with Tinkler and is in favour of his offer.

How is:

Where is Macavity now?

Perhaps he's busy taking the blinkers off.

a shot at Burro at all? It doesn't mention him at all. It is a shot at Mac for having an opinion which differs from the norm however was at least educated on what he was in favour of, yet has the balls to change his opinion and come out and say so.

Maybe you should become more educated on what you are talking about rather than shooting your mouth off.

 

[cram]

Not my problem your comprehension isn't up to scratch.

And I fail to see how it was a cheap shot. Macavity has consistently defended Burraston against criticism that he is anti-privitisation.

I stand by my comments. I would still like to know if he has changed his opinion in light of recent events.

What you have to remember is that you, and I for that matter are not privy to what has gone on behind the scenes in all of this. I would suggest that Burro has been well and truly f...ed over by Tinkler and his mob and from that he has chosen not to go out of his way to talk it up.

Is that a fair reaction from him? Probably not but when you have been wounded you sometimes that react rationally.

For the record, however he has been heard to say that the deal is a good deal. Its been in the papers and I am sure he said he supported it at the members meeting as well.

Lets not pretend however, to think that we know all of the playings in this saga because we don't.

Oh and by the way you were having a shot at Mac, a dig or what ever else you want to call it

 

[TooheysNew]

It was definitely a cheap shot.

If only one person thought so, i'd agree it could be a comprehension issue...

 

[cram]

double

 

[slotmachine]

Oh and by the way you were having a shot at Mac, a dig or what ever else you want to call it.

You're right. I was. I said so myself.
I just disagree with calling it a cheap shot.

I'm going to simplify this for everyone.

a) Many people have criticised Steve Burraston for appearing to not be in favour of the Tinkler deal and not being supportive enough of it. Myself included.

b) Macavity has consistently defended Burraston against this critiscim.

c) Rob Tew has put a gag order on Burraston, presumably for the reasons outlined in point a).

d) I want to know if Macavity has changed his opinion on Burraston's view of the Tinkler deal in light of point c).

Go Knights.

 

[cram]

You're right. I was. I said so myself.
I just disagree with calling it a cheap shot.

I'm going to simplify this for everyone.

a) Many people have criticised Steve Burraston for appearing to not be in favour of the Tinkler deal and not being supportive enough of it. Myself included.

b) Macavity has consistently defended Burraston against this critiscim.

c) Rob Tew has put a gag order on Burraston, presumably for the reasons outlined in point a).

d) I want to know if Macavity has changed his opinion on Burraston's view of the Tinkler deal in light of point c).

Go Knights.

There you go maybe you should have said that in first place because you original post came across as petulant and taking the opportunity to have a "cheap shot". You can disagree with it being a "cheap shot" but more then one person has read it the same way, go figure!

 

[Alex28]

I think if you actually take a look around Mac has differed from his original view weeks ago - not just in light of what has happened between Tew and Burro.

 

[slotmachine]

There you go maybe you should have said that in first place because you original post came across as petulant and taking the opportunity to have a "cheap shot". You can disagree with it being a "cheap shot" but more then one person has read it the same way, go figure!

All good, I'm glad you understand my point here.

I assumed that as I posted my original comment directly under the article regarding Tew imposing the gag order that people would see what I was referring to.

Will be more clear in future.

 

[slotmachine]

I think if you actually take a look around Mac has differed from his original view weeks ago - not just in light of what has happened between Tew and Burro.

His view of Burraston or his view of the Tinkler deal?

I'm not suggesting that Macavity isn't in favor of the Tinkler deal. He obviously is.

 

[Alex28]

I doubt his view of Burro will differ - I'd be disappointed if he suddenly didn't become mates with him because of a difference of opinion.

I actually don't think Burro has done all that much wrong. I don't think he has reinforced the boards view but he hasn't actually said anything wrong.

 

[slotmachine]

I don't think he has reinforced the boards view but he hasn't actually said anything wrong.

With one of two exceptions I'd agree with that.

I had a think and I realised I was being a touch harsh on Burro.
I would find it hard to be enthusiastic about losing my job, which is essentially what he's being asked to do.

 

[macavity]

I'm going to simplify this for everyone.

no, you are going to dishonestly frame the discussion.

a) Many people have criticised Steve Burraston for appearing to not be in favour of the Tinkler deal and not being supportive enough of it. Myself included.

Many people have unreasonably criticised every single thing Burro has done for the past 6 months, yourself included.

Burro quite rightly wouldn't let the club be bent over when the deal was changed. Tew was of the same mind.

Interestingly, myself and a number of regulars here met with TSG last night and one of their senior officers admitted he was the one who "screwed up" the deal by "trying to tighen it up" before Tinkler told him to pull his head in and get it done properly.

It would seem that Burro was right to be concerned about the changes to the deal that were made in February.

I think it is obvious Burro still has massive concerns. I would suggest those concerns are entirely to do with "tightening up" that was tried, and not to do with financials which are clearly extraordinarily good.

I think he has been trying to be diplomatic - but we all have trouble hiding strong emotions. Probably for the best that he doesn't speak about it moving forward.

b) Macavity has consistently defended Burraston against this critiscim.

I have consistently pointed out that criticism from muppets like you is not warranted.

c) Rob Tew has put a gag order on Burraston, presumably for the reasons outlined in point a).

Tew has gagged Burro because TSG asked for him to not be a spokesperson on the issue. I have no problem with this. The board and TSG are in agreeance that this is the way forward - they are entitled to tightly control the message coming from them.

d) I want to know if Macavity has changed his opinion on Burraston's view of the Tinkler deal in light of point c).

That question makes no sense.

It was a cheap shot, btw, but I expect nothing less from you.

 

[Serc]

Interestingly, myself and a number of regulars here met with TSG last night and one of their senior officers admitted he was the one who "screwed up" the deal by "trying to tighen it up" before Tinkler told him to pull his head in and get it done properly.

It would seem that Burro was right to be concerned about the changes to the deal that were made in February.

I think it is obvious Burro still has massive concerns. I would suggest those concerns are entirely to do with "tightening up" that was tried, and not to do with financials which are clearly extraordinarily good.

Very interesting indeed...if they think there is a chance that they won't get the 75%, they might have to come out publically with stuff like that and try to build up the members faith in TSG further (while at the same time saving Tinkler face - in fact it might make him look like the good guy going off your story)