Tinkler proposal back on (take 3)

[Medievalknight]

ok... i've sorta calmed down now.

Firstly - Tinkler has definitely shot himself in the foot with all the carry-on. not very smart.

Secondly - i don't think i could gather an older, more fuddy-duddy, resistant to change group of people if i met every person in the country and hand picked them myself. many were not interested in the deal whatsoever. many of them wouldn't have been had the Tinkler carry-on not happened at all. there could be $500 million on the table and many of them would have turned their nose up at it without a second thought. this, in particular, is the point that made me so very angry.

tinkler will need to quadruple his spend on PR over the next month if he is any hope in hell whatsoever of aquiring the Knights. after tonight, my personal opinion is that we will never be a privatised club until most of these people die. plain and simple. everyone - your club is currently in the hands of the least-progressive, most ignorant group of people i've ever been in the presence of. a private dictatorship is a dream compared to the mob that currently has the final say, and i'm seriously not even kidding. i would prefer one self-interested man to be making the big decisions than the rabble i witnessed tonight. the board fully supported the proposal and each got up and gave their 2c... and even then they turn their nose up. these are the members own chosen representatives telling them that they support this deal - that it is the best thing for the club - and they will not accept it as reality. they will not give up their right to control this club, period.

we should be thinking about who we want to administer the club under the Patrons Trust model moving forward, because regardless of what happens i can't see our current admin and board hanging around too much longer. you would be wise to stop wasting time dreaming big about what dreams may come under a Tinkler establishment, because unless something drastically changes, it's not going to happen for any amount of money in the world.

look, we will move forward, i'm pretty upset at the moment because i've just been made aware of a brutal truth about our club and our town... a truth that i know all too well but never readily wish to accept. we are governed and controlled by dinosaurs that wish nothing more than to live out their remaining days without change, without rocking the boat. the fact that we are - i would say - an 85-90% chance of turning this particular deal down irks me a bit, but the mentality that will eventually lead to this likely decision is what makes me so f**king irate.

roopy said to me a few weeks ago that our newcastle siege mentality has served us well in the past. well, i would wager a decent amount that it may just cost us the opportunity of certainly this decade, and we may not see another opportunity like this ever.

the good news is that, in spite of our inpet bunch of members - and on occasion their own ineptitude, the administration and board has genuinely done a great job through this ordeal, and has also set us up with an alternative that will guarentee we exist into the future. more than that, the future does look settled financially with a great deal of money to start flowing back into the club through increased NRL grants and a full stadium to work with. the good news is that, Tinkler or not, we are a very viable business entity moving forward - we aren't going anywhere.

the bad news is, of course, that we're ultimately run by a bunch of colostomy bag weilding old cockheads that have their head firmly buried in the sand. i just really hope that what i saw tonight wasn't indicative of our entire voting membership, but you just know that it totally is, all the same.

*deep breath and sigh*

ok, i've said my piece.

I,m a dinosaur pervey but I agree completely with what you say as I was also there. As far as the old fogeys are concerned its THERE TEAM, they cannot see beyond THOSE glasses.

I Will go so far now as to say that WE WILL NOT BE PRIVATISED until those OLD BRIGADE kick the bucket.

Typical Newcastle ppl vote LABOUR all ur life, and look where that has got us.

 

[perverse]

Sacrolishes, while i compeltely disagree with their opinion regarding the Tinkler deal in its current form, and am so morally and intellectually repulsed by their attitude and closed-mindedness... they are unfortunately entitled to their opinions too. you're also very welcome to my thoughts and opinions, as always. thanks are, of course, appreciated.

i find it a great shame that the people in the best position to attain voting rights - those with plenty of time on money on their hands, for starters - old retirees judging by the population tonight - are those that are most likely to maintain a voting membership with the club. my life has always been too erratic and flippant to have maintained my vote, and to be hoenst i don't think that is atypical of my generation in general. as such we simply will not be represented in this decision, in my opinion. the vast, diverse landscape of knights supporters will not be represented in this decision.

it is as unfortunate as it is necessary... but it is what it is. once again, i don't deny their right to their opinion... but their mentality just makes me want to rip walls down and throw chunks at them.

 

[Medievalknight]

cheers for that information Preverse! SO.. how many people do we need to sign a sheet of paper to knock off these grannies and old folk?????.... I have a pen!!!

How about a hit man :lol::lol:

 

[perverse]

How about a hit man :lol::lol:

lol, we don't need a hitman. just intercept the next few shipments of blood pressure medications to the Hunter area and i assure you the job will be done.

 

[Medievalknight]

lol, we don't need a hitman. just intercept the next few shipments of blood pressure medications to the Hunter area and i assure you the job will be done.

Hit man would be quicker (and i,m an old fart )

 

[aqua_duck]

I'd say the old folks are more concerned about the notion of being a community club rather than success, these people are probably the "oh we got beat by 60 but atleast there are heaps of local boys in the team and Clint, Reegan, Scotty and Todd tried hard"

 

[perverse]

I,m a dinosaur pervey but I agree completely with what you say as I was also there. As far as the old fogeys are concerned its THERE TEAM, they cannot see beyond THOSE glasses.

I Will go so far now as to say that WE WILL NOT BE PRIVATISED until those OLD BRIGADE kick the bucket.

Typical Newcastle ppl vote LABOUR all ur life, and look where that has got us.

:lol: indeed.

also, you almost met me tonight mate, but i decided to stay a little incognito. i think if you sat and thought about who was sitting around the area you were in, and pieced it all together, you could probably have a fair crack at putting the face to the name.

 

[perverse]

I'd say the old folks are more concerned about the notion of being a community club rather than success, these people are probably the "oh we got beat by 60 but atleast there are heaps of local boys in the team and Clint, Reegan, Scotty and Todd tried hard"

absolutely, this is exactly correct. they would be more than happy to see Tanner, Clint, Scotty, Wooly et al still running around out there and blowing kisses to the Nannas. this is their prerogative, and my understanding is that nothing will take that away from them.

it has really disillusioned me that a club i thought represented my area, an area i feel so passionately about, actually supports... nay, not supports.. totally and constitutionally abides the whims and wishes of a bunch of shrivelled up, tunnel-visioned wankers.

i would dead set pay 3 years membership up front for the right to vote on this, if only to provide a single vote against the farce that is our voting membership. i'm not even kidding. i would do it tomorrow it they'd let me.

 

[Medievalknight]

:lol: indeed.

also, you almost met me tonight mate, but i decided to stay a little incognito. i think if you sat and thought about who was sitting around the area you were in, and pieced it all together, you could probably have a fair crack at putting the face to the name.

Row behind or in front

 

[perverse]

Row behind or in front

behind mate. i almost pipped up, but then we wouldn't be having this moment, would we?

any other hints i give you will just make this farrrr too easy. you're flying solo now. the dots are all in place to connect.

 

[Silent Knight]

all we can hope for is that they are the minority in the end.

I'd like to agree with you Apey but we are talking about Newcastle here, also known to the rest of the country as God's Waiting Room.

 

[perverse]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...address-concerns/story-e6frexnr-1226013809853

Nathan Tinkler to address concerns

NATHAN Tinkler has agreed to personally speak at a Newcastle Knights members forum in a bid to allay any fears about his proposed takeover of the club. Tinkler Sports Group executive chairman Ken Edwards last night told The Daily Telegraph the billionaire mining magnate has made a commitment to share his vision for the club's future with members before they vote on his privatisation plan.

"We anticipate holding several forums between now and when the vote is taken and members will get an opportunity to see how passionate Nathan is about the Knights," Edwards said.

More than 600 turned out last night at Newcastle Panthers for what was essentially just an information meeting. Newcastle Knights chairman Rob Tew, CEO Steve Burraston and the club's legal representative Robert Faraday-Bensley addressed the crowd, detailing the events of the past month.


Club directors were universally praised for their handling of the privatisation debate and the decision to play hardball with Tinkler over the bid.

While several members voiced their concerns over the possible sale of the club, the biggest cheer was reserved for club director and Knights founder Leigh Maughan when he told members of the Tinkler offer: "We have got an opportunity here to finally go into the big time."

The Knights have a board meeting scheduled for tomorrow to go over the final draft documents from the Tinkler organisation and provided they are in order, they will recommend members approve the sale.

good stuff. i hit them up about this at the meeting.

... and what this report says is, funnily enough, true. the biggest cheer was when Leigh revved up the crowd and proposed we go into the big time. in spite of all the negative whispers i heard about the room all night, in spite of the lathering on of anti-tinkler sentiments and queries, the biggest cheer was reserved for that moment. make of that what you will, i suppose. perhaps there is a silent, intelligent majority lurking in the wings. perhaps Leigh is just good with a mob... he sure is passionate. lol.

it's also true that the board and administration was universally praised. i dished a bit out myself. they have earned it lately.

 

[RABK]

Majority of these anti-change old pricks/nanna's will kick the bucket through devastation after labor gets crushed at the election. Liberal rule in Newastle - ain't much bigger change than that.

 

[Serc]

Tinkler offers Knights revised offer
Rob Brooks
February 28, 2011 - 11:04PM

Knights members are set for a showdown at the end of March to decide the future of their club.
At an information meeting for members in Newcastle on Monday night, it was revealed by chairman Rob Tew that a revised offer from the Tinkler Sports Group (TSG) to privatise the club had been delivered to the club's lawyers for review.
The new deal would guarantee the club $10 million per year over a ten-year period, with further commitments being given in key areas such as junior development.
CEO Steve Burraston said the board would review the revised deal at a meeting this Wednesday with a view to calling an extraordinary general meeting to allow members to vote on the proposal.
"We haven't got the final document at this stage, we understand that that could be at our lawyer's offices at the moment but it probably won't be until tomorrow before myself and the board can go through the final documentation," Burraston said.
"We've received other information to suggest that all our concerns have been addressed in those documents. We need to get the documents now, go through those and ensure that is the case.
"Regardless, we'll be taking the document in its form to the members in the last week of March, hopefully by the 30th."
Negotiations between the Knights and TSG were rekindled last week when former board member Mark Fitzgibbon stepped in as mediator.
Prior to the truce, both parties had ruled out the possibility of a deal being struck after TSG withdrew its previous offer on February 21.
Burraston stressed that the revised offer put forward by TSG on Monday afternoon needed to be examined closely by members before heading to the ballot box.
"We need time to review it, I think, to make a true assessment on what's in that document," he said.
"The thing that we have to understand is that there's a lot of passionate people here on both sides of the fence and those people need to be able to receive the information."
"It won't be a board decision, it won't be my decision, it'll be a decision for the members."
Varied views were expressed by the 600 members on hand at the information meeting, and with a 75 per cent member majority needed to confirm the move to privatisation, Burraston believes the future of the club is hanging in the balance.
"I don't think you could say either way," he said of the impending outcome.
"We do have about 3000 people who are eligible to vote and there was nowhere near that number here tonight."
"So on the sample that was here I think there was people who were passionate on both sides of the fence and I wouldn't like to speculate on which way people will vote."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/tinkler-offers-knights-revised-offer-20110228-1bbvt.html

 

[Serc]

Tinkler bid has waiting Knights on board
Brett Keeble
March 1, 2011

A MAJORITY of Knights directors gave qualified support for Nathan Tinkler's revised takeover proposal at an often fiery members information meeting at Newcastle Panthers last night.
About 600 members attended the meeting, called so Knights chairman Rob Tew and chief executive Steve Burraston could brief them on developments since Tinkler raised the issue of privately owning the NRL club at a meeting with Tew on September 16 last year.
Tinkler withdrew his January 17 takeover proposal on Monday last week and the Knights countered by progressing with plans for a patrons' trust funding model. Tinkler and the Knights reached an uneasy peace last Wednesday and, since then, lawyers representing both sides have been thrashing out the detail of the mining magnate's final bid, which guarantees up to $10million in annual sponsorship revenue for 10-years.
Tew said the club expected to have the bid document today and the board planned to meet tomorrow to analyse it.
Tew said last night "critical commercial aspects of the deal" had been clarified to the board's satisfaction, and the Tinkler Sports Group's proposal was a superior financial model.
"It's up to us to present the superior financial model to you but it's up to you the members to decide," Tew said.
Members will be called to an extraordinary general meeting, expected to be on March 30, at which a 75% majority is required for Tinkler to control the Knights.
Tew said bid document copies should be sent to members by next Tuesday and an information hotline and website would be established in the next week.
Tew said the revised offer confirmed $2.5million in junior development, which was about $600,000 more than what the Knights spend now. Of that amount, Tew said $300,000 had been identified as remuneration to the Newcastle Rugby League.
Member Mark York, the organiser of a members petition last week, asked each director to reveal whether they supported the Tinkler bid.
Directors Leigh Maughan, Robbie O'Davis, John Duncan and Allan McKeown said they would vote in favour of the offer but Nick Dan and Peter Corcoran reserved their decision until they had seen the document. Newcastle Rugby League-appointed directors Trevor Crow and Vince Murphy were away at a Country Rugby League meeting.
"We've got an opportunity to go into the big-time ... Once we are certain that Nathan Tinkler's offer is the best we can get ... then looking at the big-time would be a worthwhile exercise," Maughan said to resounding applause.
There were speakers against Tinkler's proposal, including long-time Knights supporters' club official Jim Thornton, who wanted the Knights to remain in the hands of members.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-waiting-knights-on-board-20110228-1bbw9.html

 

[macavity]

While I agree that it is perhaps disappointing that the average age of our membership would be touching 70, I can't get angry at those who have maintained membership. At all.

Seriously, it isn't a difficult step to take to remember to pay your membership on time each year. If those getting cranky about it want to get cranky about it at anyone, they should get cranky at themselves.

I can't even consider that we should disenfranchise people who have taken the neccessary steps, simply because we don't agree with how they will vote. I am expecting a lot of flaming the members (esp on Herald website and that "other" site) over the next few weeks.

As for the views expressed at the meeting, my overriding impression was that a lot of the older members didn't care about what they might gain, but were instead obsessed with what they will lose. Think about that for a tic. Tinkler's carry on over the past month has played exactly to their existing concerns.

Who would have thought that the people who make the effort to maintain membership care greatly about possibly losing their membership rights?

I would have to say it isn't quite dead yet, because we traditionally have a very large number of proxies given to the board members. If the board carries proxies for 25% of the vote (not out of the question), then 50% of the floor has to vote for the proposal. Will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[Johns Magic]

I would have to say it isn't quite dead yet, because we traditionally have a very large number of proxies given to the board members. If the board carries proxies for 25% of the vote (not out of the question), then 50% of the floor has to vote for the proposal. Will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

I'm not exactly sure what a proxy is, but if it means 25% of the vote automatically goes to Tinkler(assuming the board all go that way), doesn't that mean getting half of the reamining 75% floor vote would only leave the final count at 62.5% in Tinkler's favour, and he would lose?

If the entire board voted Tinkler and that counted for 25% of the total vote, would Tinkler not require two-thirds of the remaining floor-votes to reach 75%?

I'm sure I'm wrong because I'm unfamiliar with the whole proxy process, but could you clarify that for me?

 

[Medievalknight]

behind mate. i almost pipped up, but then we wouldn't be having this moment, would we?

any other hints i give you will just make this farrrr too easy. you're flying solo now. the dots are all in place to connect.

Most of the dots were connected earlier....lol...just one or two were missing ;-) .



Still think a "hit man " is the way to go tho (nice and quick) :lol:

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

I'm not at the meeting, but from what is written here (and other updates I'm getting) it sounds like Tinky has just pissed too many people off with his stuffing around.

If it doesnt get through a large part will be to the petulant attitude of Tinkler and him irritating the oldies, the boards huge endorsement at the end will make it a very close race though.

 

[macavity]

I'm not exactly sure what a proxy is, but if it means 25% of the vote automatically goes to Tinkler(assuming the board all go that way), doesn't that mean getting half of the reamining 75% floor vote would only leave the final count at 62.5% in Tinkler's favour, and he would lose?

If the entire board voted Tinkler and that counted for 25% of the total vote, would Tinkler not require two-thirds of the remaining floor-votes to reach 75%?

I'm sure I'm wrong because I'm unfamiliar with the whole proxy process, but could you clarify that for me?

Right you are.

The point is simply that the board will probably have a large slab of votes - and that is probably the main thing keeping it all alive at present.

Tinkler agreeing to address the members is going to help hugely as well.