Tinkler pulls plug

[adamkungl]

Think about the money here that Tinkler is putting up.. 100 millions dollars..
Its not like a takeover and a 8 mil investment over 5 years.. its 100 Million Dollars.

Why would Tinkler expect resisitence from a club when he is willing to throw that sort of money into it?
If he is unhappy with the negotiation with the club, than maybe the Knights failed in keeping there HUGE investor happy.

He isn't putting up $100 million at all.
He will make up the difference if the club has under $10million in sponsorship/revenue (there's some conjecture as to whether it is sponsorship or revenue, one of the issues which brought this thing down).
Knights currently make more than $10million. Which means he doesn't put in sh*t. Which means he gets the club for free.

Even in a case where the club was short, he would put in a mere fraction of the $100mil being thrown around. $100mil is pure nonsense and spin for the gullible.

 

[Weaponhead]

Think about the money here that Tinkler is putting up.. 100 millions dollars..
Its not like a takeover and a 8 mil investment over 5 years.. its 100 Million Dollars.

Why would Tinkler expect resisitence from a club when he is willing to throw that sort of money into it?
If he is unhappy with the negotiation with the club, than maybe the Knights failed in keeping there HUGE investor happy.

Mate, the point is that he is NOT putting up $100 million. He is underwriting the Knights current income which exceeds $10 million per year anyway.

The $100 million number is a furphy that has hoodwinked many people in the early stages of the debate and now being seen for what it is.

The Knights board are also fighting for their jobs so their judgment may not be pure either. Interesting times for the Knights and the NRL.

 

[Loudstrat]

Knights need to come out and be very clear what the problems and blocks were or else their fans could just see the $100mill disappearing and get very disenchanted. Some good PR needed by the Knights me thinks.

Rubbish. They already have. Tinkler wanted it for free.

When I see Tinkler I have the same desire to smash the fat f*ck in the face that I have with John Ribot. Big petulant sooky mining magnate who whinged about paying tax.

We geddit Tinkler. You have some coin. We hope it compensates for your very small penis. Regardless, get on Ebay like everybody else and leave the Knights to the people who know how to run things.

 

[Lambretta]

Part of what I wrote for another website that linked the developments at the Knights the Broncos and the Sharks today.......


Up in the Hunter, the Knights are still looking for their Prince Charming. They thought they'd found one, but they kissed it and it turned into a fat toad who hopped off with all the cash. So their fairytale becomes their Knightmare once more.

Still reading the papers today it seems the Newcastle bosses weren't happy with the deal and they therefore decided to scupper it in the press by going public and pissing Tinkler off. Tinkler stopped looking like a good deal and was made out to be after nothing more than a free meal. The club can still go to an extraordinary meeting, but it will need to be done without the existing board who would have to stand down and as details of the deal emerge that seems less and less likely. Also there seems to be another offering in the wings.

 

[Apey]

Think about the money here that Tinkler is putting up.. 100 millions dollars..
Its not like a takeover and a 8 mil investment over 5 years.. its 100 Million Dollars.

Why would Tinkler expect resisitence from a club when he is willing to throw that sort of money into it?
If he is unhappy with the negotiation with the club, than maybe the Knights failed in keeping there HUGE investor happy.

unfortunately, I'm thinking a lot of voting Knights members are of the same stance..

 

[badav]

Many people saw the figure $100 million and the dollar signs completely blinded them.

Just because some rich guy comes along and wants a piece of your club doesn't mean its a good deal. TSG look after their own interests first and foremost, whatever they may be. You would have to be a fool to think otherwise. Also to give up NRL license on trust and under pressure would be absolutely tragic. However it seems some knights fans who had completely false visions of grandeur under Tinklers new world order can't see that.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

A snippet from the DT interview with Tinkler this morning.......

How do you respond to claims by Tew that your final offer to buy the club was a "pale imitation" of the $100 million bid initially proposed last month? Tew also claimed you had moved the goalposts before withdrawing the offer to buy out the club.

The Tinkler Group has responded to the claims of Newcastle Knights chairman Rob Tew. We stand by the $10 million per year commitment in sponsorship and corporate hospitality guaranteed over 10 years to the club as presented last month. There have been no material variations to the offer and it is now clear that Mr Tew did not understand the original offer. As we presented to the board, TSG was prepared to underwrite the difference between the annual sponsorship of the club each year and the $10 million each year. Our offer and guarantee make no mention of membership or ticketing revenue. It is unfortunate Mr Tew has sought to misrepresent our offer and indicates he is not interested or capable of determining the value of our proposed commitment.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s-nathan-tinkler/story-e6frexnr-1226009709075


Who knows what to believe......

 

[Timmah]

If they didn't understand the offer they would've asked for a clarification. All that means is that the offer was not mutually beneficial for both the club and Tinkler in the view of the Knights board.

Tinkler is behaving like a petulant child who isn't being given his toy.

 

[Izz]

A snippet from the DT interview with Tinkler this morning.......

How do you respond to claims by Tew that your final offer to buy the club was a "pale imitation" of the $100 million bid initially proposed last month? Tew also claimed you had moved the goalposts before withdrawing the offer to buy out the club.

The Tinkler Group has responded to the claims of Newcastle Knights chairman Rob Tew. We stand by the $10 million per year commitment in sponsorship and corporate hospitality guaranteed over 10 years to the club as presented last month. There have been no material variations to the offer and it is now clear that Mr Tew did not understand the original offer. As we presented to the board, TSG was prepared to underwrite the difference between the annual sponsorship of the club each year and the $10 million each year. Our offer and guarantee make no mention of membership or ticketing revenue. It is unfortunate Mr Tew has sought to misrepresent our offer and indicates he is not interested or capable of determining the value of our proposed commitment.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s-nathan-tinkler/story-e6frexnr-1226009709075


Who knows what to believe......

Bitchy, much?

 

[Rockin Ronny]

If they didn't understand the offer they would've asked for a clarification. All that means is that the offer was not mutually beneficial for both the club and Tinkler in the view of the Knights board.

Tinkler is behaving like a petulant child who isn't being given his toy.

Beware fat cat privateers.
Remember Singo and the Bears. He got the management rights to the stadium for a pittance - but went missing when a fight was required.

 

[SoftSydney]

If the big mac and large fries really wanted to help the knights he would sponsor 1-2 players so the knights could sign some talent at a good price.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

The guy wants control of the club.........he's not going to do anything that might make the current admin look good.

 

[Slackboy72]

Think about the money here that Tinkler is putting up.. 100 millions dollars..
Its not like a takeover and a 8 mil investment over 5 years.. its 100 Million Dollars.

Why would Tinkler expect resisitence from a club when he is willing to throw that sort of money into it?
If he is unhappy with the negotiation with the club, than maybe the Knights failed in keeping there HUGE investor happy.

Tinkler would be spending more on a happy meal at Maccas than he would on the Knights.

Are the Knights worth more than a happy meal?

 

[skeepe]

Some interesting stuff here from the arrogant lardarse:

NATHAN TINKLER has admitted he approached Kade Snowden just hours before the former Newcastle prop was about to sign a new two-year deal with Cronulla.

That's not what they said before...

''I made that call - I don't need anyone's permission to make a phone call,'' Tinkler said yesterday. ''I picked up the phone and rung him and said, 'Do you want to come back to Newcastle - and if you do, you need to wait and let this stuff transpire'.


''Kade Snowden is going to be the best front-rower in the game. He is a special talent.
''He could hold off signing a contract until February next year and a club would still take him.


''All I see is a local player who is about to become an Australian representative and the Knights have walked away. There should be no one more important player for the club to sign than that bloke.''

Snowden is a prop. A potentially great prop, but he's still a prop. Tinkler doesn't seem to understand the game, or the salary cap.

Knights chairman Rob Tew was alarmed by reports a third party had directly approached players to entice them to Newcastle.


''If true, these actions undermine the whole concept of fair play and professional conduct which both the NRL and clubs are strongly committed to,'' he said.


Knights chief executive Steve Burraston described that action and other rumoured approaches to Jamal Idris, Michael Ennis, Darius Boyd and coach Wayne Bennett as ''complete arrogance'' and ''unprofessional'' and showed disregard for salary-cap restrictions.

All true, and all especially good reasons why Knights fans should be celebrating this outcome rather than deriding their management.

Tinkler said the ''club has to be upgraded''.

''Don't think I was coming on board to pay the existing squad to run between ninth and 12th every year,'' he said. ''Forget that. I was coming on board if we could make changes to make the club a top-four threat.''

:lol:

Seems like he doesn't rate the players the Knights have now at all.

All above quotes sourced from here: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...s-he-made-call-to-snowden-20110222-1b2pn.html

There's also this:

Tinkler, who is worth an estimated $610m, has lent the club money in the past to keep them afloat and said he intended to call in the $500,000 outstanding debt and the Jets, the A-League club he owns, would also also pursue $250,000 in compensation from a motocross event at EnergyAustralia Stadium that forced them to relocate an A-League game to Port Macquarie.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...m-knights-offer-withdrawn-20110221-1b2od.html

What a scumbag. I have no great love for the Knights, but seriously, to not only throw a tantrum because the Knights wanted to do a little due diligence on the offer, and then try to ruin the club because of it... the block is an absolute prick. Rugby league does not need someone like Nathan Tinkler.

If the Knights members have any sense, they won't launch a no-confidence motion against the current board, because Tinkler would only be leading them on a road to ruin.

 

[Apey]

What a scumbag. I have no great love for the Knights, but seriously, to not only throw a tantrum because the Knights wanted to do a little due diligence on the offer,

supposedly the final draft of the offer had only been in the knights hands for a few days.

If the Knights members have any sense, they won't launch a no-confidence motion against the current board, because Tinkler would only be leading them on a road to ruin.

also, according to a forum member who was there last night, the motion & document being signed was actually just requesting members be able to see for themselves the Tinkler offer, not an actual vote of no-confidence like the wowsers in the paper reported.

 

[Special K]

I really can't see Wayne Bennett of all people working for this guy.

Also every coach would like Idris sure... But at 350k? No thanks.

 

[PJ]

Originally Posted by bomberman
Think about the money here that Tinkler is putting up.. 100 millions dollars..
Its not like a takeover and a 8 mil investment over 5 years.. its 100 Million Dollars.

Why would Tinkler expect resisitence from a club when he is willing to throw that sort of money into it?
If he is unhappy with the negotiation with the club, than maybe the Knights failed in keeping there HUGE investor happy.

That is not the way I read it at all.

He has gauranteed $10mill per annum, but that is after all the income comes out such as sponsorship. One of the sticking points was that originally the gate takings were not included then Tinklers group put them into the deal with no notice.

So essentially after the money gaurantee from the NRl, gate takings and sponsorship monies Tinkler could put nothing into the club at all but still have control of it.

Great deal for him, poor deal for the knights imo.

 

[docbrown]

One of the sticking points was that originally the gate takings were not included then Tinklers group put them into the deal with no notice.

When it was just a coverage of the sponsorship, it was a great deal.

Under the revised terms, it's a dud.

At the moment it's probably just a $4.5 million total take over - i.e. the rough amount to cover the club's debts.

To secure the club's long term future under those terms and conditions, it probably needs to initially be a $15 million yearly guarantee, with a review every 2 to 3 years to adjust for costs/inflation/revenue projections etc.

I suspect in 10 years time, clubs will need to generate around $30 million a season.

 

[851]

That is not the way I read it at all.

He has gauranteed $10mill per annum, but that is after all the income comes out such as sponsorship. One of the sticking points was that originally the gate takings were not included then Tinklers group put them into the deal with no notice.

So essentially after the money gaurantee from the NRl, gate takings and sponsorship monies Tinkler could put nothing into the club at all but still have control of it.

Great deal for him, poor deal for the knights imo.

In todays paper it said the memberships and gate takings were not included in the 10mil that the Knights generate,so it is basically sposorship only,so that would mean Tinkler would be putting in more than people are saying.
read the last answer given in the interview.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s-nathan-tinkler/story-e6frexnr-1226009709075

 

[bomberman]

That is not the way I read it at all.

He has gauranteed $10mill per annum, but that is after all the income comes out such as sponsorship. One of the sticking points was that originally the gate takings were not included then Tinklers group put them into the deal with no notice.

So essentially after the money gaurantee from the NRl, gate takings and sponsorship monies Tinkler could put nothing into the club at all but still have control of it.

Great deal for him, poor deal for the knights imo.

a gurantee of 10 mil is good.