Knights reject 10 million dollar offer from Tinkler

Maddog78

Maddog78

Paul Rauhihi
The herald is reporting that the knights have rejected an offer to sell to Tinkler before taking it to the board or it's members.

Anyone got an opinion on this?
 
very disappointing that they have gone public.

the deal as it stands isn't even legally achievable.

---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 AM ----------

would also say that the debate has already been reduced to sound bite simplicity - it is a very complicated matter and should be treated as such.
 
macavity said:
very disappointing that they have gone public.

the deal as it stands isn't even legally achievable.

---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 AM ----------

would also say that the debate has already been reduced to sound bite simplicity - it is a very complicated matter and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

Hey I am not having a go at the administration, but I think you have 2 parties with differing opinions, 10Mil sounds like alot of money to not even consider having an open debate about. I guess Tinkler thinks if he can garner some public support it will force the issue.

Considering u know so much what will make it legally achievable?
 
I don't really have the time to write a treatise, but I just point out the following:

The Knights constitution provides (in part) that the company's objective is:

"to establish, maintain, and conduct a Rugby League Club and to secure, establish and maintain affiliation with the New South Wales Rugby League Limited and to field teams in the Sydney Premiership Competition"

A company limited by guarantee is wound up when it cannot pursue its objects. If the Newcastle Knights Limited sell their NRL license, they cannot reasonably pursue their objects - so are wound up.

Tinkler says Knights members will have certain controls - name, colours, first right of refusal on sale.

How can the members have any controls when the company of which they are members should be wound up?

This would require some pretty massive changes to the constitution - and TBH I reckon he has buckleys of getting 75% of members to agree without board support. And before people start rabbiting on about some "jobs for the boys" BS - board members aren't paid, they are simply people who love our club. If they don't support the offer, shouldn't that be some sort of red flag?

Also, ask yourself, where does this $10mil go? Sure, the debt is cleared, but after that Tinkler is effectively investing in his own asset. "returning the club to the community" by buying it from the community... is this upside-down day?
 
Billionaire Nathan Tinkler launches an audacious bid to take over Newcastle Knights
By Barry Toohey From The Daily Telegraph November 10, 2010 9:26AM

Mining magnate Nathan Tinkler has launched an audacious bid to take over Newcastle Knights and is prepared to take his offer to the community in a bid to get it across the line.

But Knights officials were reluctant on Tuesday, claiming the deal is not lucrative enough.
Tinkler, who already owns Newcastle's A-League club the Jets, has offered to settle the Knights' $2.75 million debt and provide up to $10 million in investment over the next 10 years.

But Knights chairman Robbie Tew says the offer does not go far enough.

"With no guarantee Nathan will at least cover our existing revenues, I don't see how it puts us in a superior financial position to the one we are in now," he said.

"I've conveyed to him that we don't think the offer goes far enough but I'm not sure if that is the end of it or not. The offer only arrived last night and I've had further correspondence today but that is as far as it has got."

Asked would he be prepared to take Tinkler's offer to the Knights members for a privatisation vote, Tew said: "Not in its current form, no."

The Knights turn over $20 million a year with $7.5 million coming directly through sponsorship. It is understood some sponsors have indicated they may bail out if the club is privatised.

But Tinkler's right-hand man at the Jets, executive chairman Ken Edwards, said the offer was genuine and believes it is the way forward for the Knights.

"Nathan's been in negotiations with the Knights now for more than 12 months and the offer is a fair and genuine one," he said.

"It pays down the debt which is close to $3 million and just as he has demonstrated with the Jets since he took over the club, it is all about the community with Nathan and he is genuine about that."
Click to expand...

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...ewcastle-knights/story-e6frf3ou-1225950722435
 
@Macavity



A company constitution is merely a legal document; it can be amended and revoked. Anything that is written can be changed if those involved want that change.

The acquisition cannot go through without a 75% + majority vote from the members, but my fear for the board is the longer they do not come to the members with a solution the longer they are perpetuating the feeling amongst the community that it is about retaining their position and not about what’s best for the club.

I understand that board members don’t get paid, believe me I have dealt with this before, but do you want to be in a situation like South’s were when they had the old heads not wanting to let go for the sake of the community and the acquirer gaining support day by day, from that same community that would prefer to see a successful team and not a continually struggling club, both financially and on the field.

I would assume (and I think it’s a fair assumption) the following;

1) Tinkler didn’t make this offer last week and is going to the press straight away, this has been going on a while, correct?
2) He is not stupid, he knows the people of Newcastle want what’s best for their club and he is going public to gain support for his bid.
3) The board also want what’s best but are not willing to sell the club, and possibly risk a backlash of support from members, if it appears that they have bot worked in the best interests of those members.

I tend to agree, you would not sell a business that turns over 20Mil+ per year for 10Mil unless you had a valid reason, but given that Souths sold for a lot less 10Mil sound like a pretty good damn offer if the terms can be negotiated to not discriminate against either party. Agree?
 
Maddog said:
A company constitution is merely a legal document; it can be amended and revoked.
Click to expand...

mate do you know what I do for a crust?

I would assume (and I think it’s a fair assumption) the following;

1) Tinkler didn’t make this offer last week and is going to the press straight away, this has been going on a while, correct?
2) He is not stupid, he knows the people of Newcastle want what’s best for their club and he is going public to gain support for his bid.
3) The board also want what’s best but are not willing to sell the club, and possibly risk a backlash of support from members, if it appears that they have bot worked in the best interests of those members.
Click to expand...

Tinkler made the offer on Monday - Tew queried a few conditions, and then we got to where we are.

Negotiations have been going on for 12 months, but on very different terms than those that were put forward on Monday.

Hopefully this is the beginning, not the end.
 
macavity said:
mate do you know what I do for a crust?
Click to expand...

No I don't but I know if you buy a buisiness you can change anything you want provided the current members/shareholders approve it, my point was (and you obviously missed it) that anything can change, if those involved want change.

Again I am not criticising the board or the club I am saying that from a PR stand point it is not looking good for the current administration, when someone come out and says the offer of 10Mil has been knocked back.

BTW do you know what I do for a job? Put it this way I have dealt with many registered clubs and I may know a thing or 2 about this as well, granted I don't have a law degree, nor do I have knowledge of this particular deal but I can tell you the longer this goes on the more people will supoport Tinkler and the board and all their administrators will be out of a job or unpaid position.

When it comes down to it what is best for the club?

Also stop being so damn confrontational, it doesn't bide well for your recruitment of fellow supporters........I know it makes me want to stay away.
 
Last edited:
Questions:

Is he basically buying the club for the accumulated debt ($3M approx), then guaranteeing a $1M sponsorship/investment per year for ten years from Patinack?

How do you put a price on a business that does not make money?

How long can we continue without change?

Whats in it for the fans? Guarantee of continuation for at least 10 years? Is that it?

What if it turns to **** like the Jets and Constantine who then takes over?

Will the admins of the Knights and Jets combine how stays who goes?
 
Wow this thread has some quality reading!!
I really hope this isnt the end of Tinkler becoming involved with the knights i think it would be good for newcastle sport in general.
Great debate to read Maddog and Macavity and i can anwser what Mac does for a crust pretty sure he's a lawyer
 
Tinkler is Worth 610 million dollars !!!

Russell crowe only has 60m

End of story... the knights need him more then he needs the knights...

This is peanuts for him...his not buying to make money..

Rare chance for the knights and the boards may stuff it up again

The board has managed the club to be in debt in a 1 team newcastle mad city !!!

Like having 1 Restraunt in newcastle and still be in debt.. poor management....
 
Mr Goanna said:
$10 mil?...it's not enough...we're not Man United but we're not bush league either...
Click to expand...


doesnt actually matter $1 or $10 million

the money goes to club pays debt and facilities which tinkler will own anyways..

its not going to the board or memebers...

so the board are risking the knight future...

offers like this dont come around again soon
 
Having childhood fans owning the team doesnt always end too well. Often they are very good at the business side of things, as thats normally how they got to being rich enough to buy the club, but all too often they stuff up the on-field stuff.

It seems to be going alright for Souths at the moment but for all these high profile signings means means your squad is 2 or 3 players weaker on the depth side of things. And being a Washington Redskin supporter, I'm all to familiar with all the things that can go wrong. Only now has their owner, Dan Snyder, actually employed the right people to run a successful football team. It only took him 11 years to see the light and figure out that signing every high profile FA possible and trading draft picks for ageing stars and paying them tonnes of money and lengthy contracts doesnt win Superbowls.

If Tinkler ends up getting the club, I hope he sticks to just running the 'business' side of things and doesnt take too much control over the playing side of things. Sure, pull the right strings in order to make signings, pay the checks to get the best available coaches etc. but dont go trying to assemble 'his' dream team, cause it never ends well.
 
Last edited:
From my understanding of all this, Tinkler's offer does not assure the club will generate the same amount of revenue per year as it already does, let alone more so I can see why Tew is cautious. But at the same time, I have no doubt once Tinkler becomes owner he will put more money into the club, bring in more sponsors and will get us to the "cutting edge" standard that he's been talking about. It's definitely a risk but I have complete confidence in him turning the club around and getting us to a point where our management standards are equal to the best in the NRL. I hope it's resolved as soon as possible so we can move forward with whatever decision is made.
 
Last edited:
Junior11 said:
I hope it's resolved as soon as possible so we can move forward with whatever decision is made.
Click to expand...

I think better to take as long as needed and make sure the right decision is made.

This is something we shouldn't be rushing. The (then) Auckland Warriors did that when they went private in 1998, two years later they were bankrupt.
 
jamesgould said:
I think better to take as long as needed and make sure the right decision is made.

This is something we shouldn't be rushing. The (then) Auckland Warriors did that when they went private in 1998, two years later they were bankrupt.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% but what's concerning me personally is fans are already taking on a "Tinkler vs. the board" frame of mind which is actually pretty disappointing.

I've never had much interest in the whole business side of Rugby League so I won't even try to get into the finer details of it all but what I do know is the fans really need to have a better understanding of what is going on because what's been reported over the last 24 hours is sending out mixed messages to everyone and it seems alot of people are taking sides which is not ideal at all. I understand the deal sounds too good to turn down but in my opinion we should still be respectful of Tew's decision.

And I too agree the final decision should not be rushed and I know its still early days and time is what's needed with this sort of thing but the sooner they can answer just some of our questions the better, thats for sure.

(Sorry if I'm just stating the obvious with all I've said but I just wanted to voice my opinion on this issue.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top