Tinkler weighs in with $100m Knights offer

[cleary89]

Where does it say that he's the only sponsor? To me 10 million plus 7 million would take their sponsorship income alone to 17 million - easily the best in the NRL. Probably the best in any code in Australia. Then you have memberships & gate.

I don't see where you're coming from mate. There's nothing that states they have to give up all their sponsorship. They'll probably lose Coal & Allied & what Tinkler tips in will be 10 times the value annually. Then you have Blue Tongue, NBN, NIB etc who whose sponsorship won't be affected.

Hes not putting in 10m him self, hes guaranteeing they get at least 10m, so currently he would be putting in 3m himself to make it 10m.

 

[LineBall]

So what will be the privately owned clubs in the NRL?

South Sydney
Newcastle
Brisbane? (news Corp major shareholder? )
Melbourne? ( news Corp Owned )
Manly
Warriors?

Can the more enlightened members of the forum correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure I am).

 

[Slackboy72]

Good to see souffs supporters talking up the rusty discount-bin giveaway of their club. No sellers remorse there eh?

 

[JoeD]

The Knights currently generate around $7 million a year in sponsorship

Plus gate takings plus NRL TV deal? How exactly are they losing money in the first place?

 

[Noname36]

Plus gate takings plus NRL TV deal? How exactly are they losing money in the first place?

Just about every club is losing money one way or another. Newcastle just don't have an owner or league's club to pick up the slack when that happens (right now at least).

 

[macavity]

Plus gate takings plus NRL TV deal? How exactly are they losing money in the first place?

servicing retained debt, plus we have the most expensive stadium deal in the NRL (by a long way).

We have decent income, but our non-football and non-staff expenses are huge.

 

[Von]

You know what is also good, more private ownership sends a strong message.

Successful wealthy businessmen don't throw their money away.
It shows Rugby League is a great game to be involved with from a sponsors point of view.
Whether it is Tinkler, Politis, Bouris, Packer, Crowe, PHaC, the Broncos guys, Delmege, Penn, Singo, etc, it is a strong message to other codes, Rugby League can attract some of the wealthiest people in the country because it is such a great game.

 

[timka4]

Sounds like a good deal to me, sign her up!

 

[franklin2323]

Where does it say that he's the only sponsor? To me 10 million plus 7 million would take their sponsorship income alone to 17 million - easily the best in the NRL. Probably the best in any code in Australia. Then you have memberships & gate.

I don't see where you're coming from mate. There's nothing that states they have to give up all their sponsorship. They'll probably lose Coal & Allied & what Tinkler tips in will be 10 times the value annually. Then you have Blue Tongue, NBN, NIB etc who whose sponsorship won't be affected.

Exctly not to mention a streamlined front office sharing with the A League. It sews up country footy for atleast 10 years and further strengthens RL. Sounds like a good deal. Knights fans any chance if will get knocked back?? Crazy if it is

 

[Matt23]

Knights fans any chance if will get knocked back?? Crazy if it is

If it goes to a vote it might stuggle :crazy:

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

So what will be the privately owned clubs in the NRL?

South Sydney
Newcastle
Brisbane? (news Corp major shareholder? )
Melbourne? ( news Corp Owned )
Manly
Warriors?

Can the more enlightened members of the forum correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure I am).

That's about right. Melbourne and Brisbane are both owned by News Corp, although Melbourne is a wholly owned subsidiary and Brisbane is a listed company where News Corp owns the majority of shares (a bit under 70% I think).

The one that I'm not sure on is the Gold Coast.

 

[Perth Red]

$10mill sponsorship guaranteed, $4mill NRL grant, decent crowd base (increasing with stadium redevelopment) + merchandise should see their income well over $17mill and move them into the top 4 or 5 wealthy clubs. Bite his hand off!

Just as an aside, being a more astute businessman will he look to increase the knights fanbase more and target other areas, such as CC?

 

[LineBall]

If the time comes that most clubs are privately owned - would this be the beginning of the end for the salary cap?

For example - A team 'owner' wants to protect his investment. The best way for that investment to maintain its worth is to be successful and making a profit. This comes with success on and off the field, but primarly on the field.

To improve on field results, the 'owner' wants to attract a star player to the club - but he can't due to the salary cap restrictions. Now the 'owner' can easily afford to pay him with his deep pockets and other third party agreements but this is forbidden.

Other 'owners' also want to improve their playing roster, by either buying players from other clubs or recruiting some suitable types from Union.

The rumblings from the privately owned clubs becomes louder and louder - they can't buy the players they want, and can't run their business as they want to - and with the majority of the clubs having private ownership - they could vote as a bloc on the IC and force the removal of the salary cap.

Maybe?

 

[muzby]

lol.

If you actually look at the nuts and bolts of it, the deal that Tinkler is offering is almost exactly the same as that which Crowe offered Souths.

$3 mill to wipe off debt and then an amount each year to cover any short fall in sponsorship. The only difference being that Tinkler has a cap on his liability, Crowe does not.

Don't let the truth stand in the way of a good Souths bashing though.

no dramas, lets see the evidence (or this truth of which you speak) then to say otherwise about crowe..

for example (a few things i'd like cleared up before i shut up..)

there are a lot of intangibles about crowe & what he is doing.. you only hear "he is losing money" you never hear how much he is investing.. tinkler has put it out there.. souths haven't..

you hear "he brings good sponsors to the club becasue of who he is".. please elaborate which sponsors have signed on becasue of russell, and how much in overs they have paid to be part of souths, and not any other NRL club that would also provide national exposure..


once again, i point out it's all post-rationalisation by souths fans... you don't have to feel bad about it, humans are hard wired to think like that so we don't end up moping around all day..

 

[carcharias]

no matter what .....tinkler is one fat slob of a human.

 

[Noname36]

no matter what .....tinkler is one fat slob of a human.

As long as he and Burro don't spend half the money on pies, I couldn't care less how fat he is...

 

[Perth Red]

no matter what .....tinkler is one fat slob of a human.

yeh with that sort of money you'd think he'd have a home gym and a really fit swedish personal trainer for motivation!

 

[Lambretta]

sounds like a lot of post-rationalisation from souths fans on here..

realising that the club was sold off far too cheap so the brain is working out ways to justify the price..

It doesn't matter what the club SOLD for, it's what the club and the fans get out of the deal.

On the one hand, no sale = struggle street and possible future extinction.

Sale = income, better playing roster, paid off debts, improved facilities, better opportunity, increased memberships etc etc etc

As a non Souths fan, I can see that the sale to Russell Crowe was the best thing for Souths. Hell, even a blind man could see that.

 

[Von]

yeh with that sort of money you'd think he'd have a home gym and a really fit swedish personal trainer for motivation!

well at least a really fit swedish personal trainer

 

[Von]

If the time comes that most clubs are privately owned - would this be the beginning of the end for the salary cap?

For example - A team 'owner' wants to protect his investment. The best way for that investment to maintain its worth is to be successful and making a profit. This comes with success on and off the field, but primarly on the field.

To improve on field results, the 'owner' wants to attract a star player to the club - but he can't due to the salary cap restrictions. Now the 'owner' can easily afford to pay him with his deep pockets and other third party agreements but this is forbidden.

Other 'owners' also want to improve their playing roster, by either buying players from other clubs or recruiting some suitable types from Union.

The rumblings from the privately owned clubs becomes louder and louder - they can't buy the players they want, and can't run their business as they want to - and with the majority of the clubs having private ownership - they could vote as a bloc on the IC and force the removal of the salary cap.

Maybe?

Don't think so. All the NFL teams are privately owned and they have a salary cap that works and even a draft.
I guess the governing body just puts rules in place regarding private ownership, such as salary cap. What I would like to see is a rule stating no team can be moved. (e.g Newcastle Knights to Perth Knights). We don't want to get like the US where a team may move across the country. That sux!