im talking about his misleading comments alex.. not unfactual comments
why are you trying to put words into my mouth?
his insistence that we are 'break even' and implication we are on an even keel but for the lack of "profit" completely ignores the fact we do without plenty of resources and facilities that more wealthy clubs have.
and this line is as close to an outright lie as you can get.. and this is from the guy who has apparently been running our club
But we all operate under a salary cap, so there is only so much you can do with the money anyhow.
do you agree that this is highly misleading and could be reasonably considered dishonest?
How is it misleading? Can we pay players over the salary cap from within the club? No we can't. We can have our players take up third party agreements, but that can't come from our sudden windfall. We can buy all the gym equipment and GPS equipment and supplements that we want, however at the end of the day we can't do anything more than the next club with a salary cap in place.
When he said that TSG hadn't come out and said they were doing the $200 family season tickets. He couldn't have possibly known or commented on what TSG will implement when they were to take over the club. The improvements to the club could have been funded by the Patron's Trust if that is how the club and trust decided that was how the money was to be spent.
So...the club will get $2.6 Million to "repay" accumulated losses which have already been paid for, will get another $1.5 Million in working capital and a further $3 Million in sponsorship - so that is $7.1 Million in cash with maybe $2.5 Million in creditors. Do you not agree that there is only so much we can do with that surplus $4.5 Million?
I believe he was probably mis-quoted a little and was saying that having Tinkler as an owner wasn't going to allow us to buy any player we wanted at any cost (thus the reference to the salary cap).
We were a "break-even" organisation when he said it. We didn't have certain resources because we were underfunded. For 23 years no one has stepped up and said that they would fund us - whether that be in a buyout like Tinkler has achieved, or in a Trust like Burro tried to implement? Should he not get any credit for getting the club in to such a position if the Tinkler deal was to fall over?
All I heard him say was that if the members did not want a buyout, all was not lost and there was an alternative. Lets face it - there were risks in the Tinkler deal (which thanks to pressure from Tew and Burro they got a Bank Guarantee ensuring the money that Tinkler promised will always be there), and (on the assumption that the $6 Million was actually credited to the Trust) not many risks with the Trust. I might add that the Bank Guarantee by Tinkler happened late in the peace as well - possibly after some of the quotes used here.
I agree that the Trust was an inferior offer and ultimately only delayed the inevitable. But Burro at least went out and looked for alternate funding (more than any other CEO has done) and also ensured we got the offer we deserved from Tinkler.
