Official: Tinkler wins ownership of Newcastle Knights

Discussion in 'Newcastle Knights Discussion' started by roger88, Mar 7, 2011.

?

Are you eligible to vote? How would you vote?

Poll closed Mar 31, 2011.
  1. Voting member - Will vote for Tinkler takeover

    16 vote(s)
    21.9%
  2. Voting member - Will vote against privatisation

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Non-Voting member - Would vote for Tinkler takeover

    57 vote(s)
    78.1%
  4. Non-Voting member - Would vote against privatisation

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Joshhh

    Joshhh OnARampageFuelledByGod

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Posts:
    11,705
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Lambton, Newcastle
    Doesn't really sound good when they say a "major announcement" before the vote has even been done. My Gosh i hope it's a positive announcement!!
     
  2. ~knights1~

    ~knights1~ Ben Kennedy

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Posts:
    3,426
    Location:
    Newcastle
    I've already sent by proxy vote by mail
    and i voted yes :D
    and i know 2 others in my family who voted yes as well
    so there is 3 100% votes that i know of personally !!!!

    go knights go the tinkler bid !!!
     
  3. callumtear

    callumtear Willie Mason

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Posts:
    348
    Location:
    Brisbane
    so just to clarify...

    votes will be taken up to the 31st. (taking into consideration proxy voting) Are they likely to be counted then as well? i guess im asking when we will have a final announcement on the outcome? before what i assume to be followed by the weeks or months of finalising the arrangement should Tinkler take over.
     
  4. Ms.Nobody

    Ms.Nobody Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Posts:
    17,541
    The transition period if Tinkler takes over should be about a month.
     
  5. R_A

    R_A Mark Hughes

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Posts:
    2,904
    Location:
    Sydney
    What happened to the "it wont be official until 2012"? is that still happening or is it about a month possibly if mentioned above? I dont know if that changed in the revised revised offer

    ---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

    Awesome stuff, so thats 5 votes
     
  6. Ms.Nobody

    Ms.Nobody Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Posts:
    17,541
    From what I got told the other day, if TSG win the vote they will immediately begin to take over in every aspect of the club. All employees will be given an even playing field, though some may get the chop. (which happened at the jets)

    Hence though if TSG do win, tickets for $3.75 wont be available until Round 10 against Warriors.

    The club's ownership should be turned over by then. Like a transition stage.

    That's what I've been told anyway.
     
  7. R_A

    R_A Mark Hughes

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Posts:
    2,904
    Location:
    Sydney
    Oh ok, yeah that all makes sense then. Yeah I dont expect it to happen in a day either so that sounds about right. I guess a more immediate transition then 2012 as possibly anticipated makes more sense to get through it as soon as possible but still not rushing it.
     
  8. ~knights1~

    ~knights1~ Ben Kennedy

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Posts:
    3,426
    Location:
    Newcastle
    From round 10 included ...we have 10 home games left...so that sounds right...the family package incudes this
     
  9. Ms.Nobody

    Ms.Nobody Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Posts:
    17,541
    :lol: Yeh I asked the question 'so can everyone get in cheaper for the Round 4 game against the Dragons' and it was too soon and then I got that explanation.

    Which is of course fair enough.

    Even more reason, imagine what sort of announcements TSG could come up with during 6 weeks of 'transition'

    Even MORE reason for everyone to vote yes!
     
  10. jamesgould

    jamesgould Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    25,835
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lower Hutt, New Zealand
    Vote yes to save the club. Look at what is happening to Cronulla at the moment, accord to the Daily Telegraph their club-saving deals are hitting problems and they are in severe danger of folind within the next couple of years.

    That will be us if this Tinkler deal doesn't go ahead.
     
  11. R_A

    R_A Mark Hughes

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Posts:
    2,904
    Location:
    Sydney
  12. Novocastrian90

    Novocastrian90 Brock Mueller

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Posts:
    1,296

    That's just fear mongering right there....but yes the Sharks look screwed.
     
  13. TheRedAfro

    TheRedAfro Rod Shoesmith

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    753
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Newcastle
    No, fear mongering is the fools on the Newcastle Herald comments repeatedly lying that Tinkler wishes to sell the club, change it's name/colours/everything, is a greedy narcistic man who wishes for nothing more than to somehow make a profit from a legally binded non-profit club if he were to take control etc etc etc.


    The difference between what James said and what these trolls say is that James' comments have a very real potential to be true, whereas the others are just flat out lying.
     
  14. Novocastrian90

    Novocastrian90 Brock Mueller

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Posts:
    1,296

    Its doesnt matter if it has the POTENTIAL to be true, its still fear mongering to say our club is doomed if we dont vote for Tinkler. You cant change the circumstances to fit your position. Furthermore none of us know the true position of the clubs finances or what back-up options we have in place, so you cant accurately at all say there is a very real chance.
     
  15. TheRedAfro

    TheRedAfro Rod Shoesmith

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    753
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Newcastle
    I believe there was an article in a paper in the past few days outlining an extra $1.5m debt.

    Not to mention the only reason we even made a minimal profit last year was due to a court ordered payout to us that was sorta lolsworthy, the fact we were given a loan by Tinkler which they did not include in the debts of the club, while they are in fact in debt to Tinkler.

    For all the parading of the Knights 'making a profit' it is quite a funny site.

    Not to mention before he was muffled Burro kept on singing the praises of this extra grant we'll get like all other clubs after the new tv deal in a couple of years time. Only factor is that it is likely the cap will raise along with this increase payment.

    And the simple matter that we are hanging on increased payouts and wealthy fans/sponsors who are feeling generous to bail us out every third year is a very unsustainable way to operate what is supposed to be a professional sporting club.
     
  16. Novocastrian90

    Novocastrian90 Brock Mueller

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Posts:
    1,296
    http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...15million-black-hole/2112505.aspx?storypage=0

    That article. You should probably read it all.

    Either way your getting off point. Im not questioning the finer points of the Knights revenue and expenses bill. Just the use of fear mongering.

    But to put it in prespective, our debts, going by the most common figure used is a quarter of that of the Sharks, and again like i have previously said, you can only go off what is presented to us by the knights, in reports and such. The board has been none to shy in announcing that they have turned the knights financial situation around over the last few years, and it is growing into a much better position.

    While it doesn't paint the picture of us becoming a financially strong and profitable club, it also most definitely doesn't picture us in for turbulent times, where we are making million dollar losses every year, creating a huge debt in a short period of time.

    Rather it tells us we a moving towards becoming a realatively break-even/small profit club that will be financially survivable and begin to slowly but surely pay off our debt.

    Future more the knights are not sitting on there arse's, not continually looking for new sponserships, revenue sources and alternatives to fund the club.


    So to state we either accept Tinkler's offer, or end up in as much debt as the sharks and collapse is and always will be fearmongering.
     
  17. ~knights1~

    ~knights1~ Ben Kennedy

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Posts:
    3,426
    Location:
    Newcastle
  18. Pieguyfly

    Pieguyfly Sean Rudder

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Posts:
    2,733
    Location:
    Sydney
    Sorry were you writing this at 2am in the morning or something?
     
  19. jamesgould

    jamesgould Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    25,835
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lower Hutt, New Zealand
    I said:

    Did you see what Tew was saying in the paper a day or two ago? If Tinkler doesn't get voted in, we have a shortfall that we can't pay and will have to go cap in hand to sponsors hoping they get us out of it. He also said that's not unusual for us.

    Geez, you can't get much closer to the brink than that. I'd say that sort of situation does put us in danger of not seeing oout the next few years. Not saying we'll definitely be goners, but it's a possibility.

    The board has said our current model is unworkable in the future, and the lack of details surrounding the Patron's Trust fills me with no confidence whatsoever. We're turning a $15,000 profit last year, which makes no dent at all in $3.5 million debts.

    ---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 PM ----------

    "Severe danger" of something happening does not mean definitely. This means the POTENTIAL is there.

    Where is the fear mongering?
     
  20. Novocastrian90

    Novocastrian90 Brock Mueller

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Posts:
    1,296

    Thats when i got home.

    ---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

    Ok... Im debating the Knights finances, never was. JUst your use of fear mongering... and even then it was a little in jest and didnt reply the large debate it deserves how.

    I never said there wasnt the potential. But you cant accurately say very real chance, when the situation is no where near that. Theres is always a potential for something to happen or not happen.

    i actually linked what Tew said in my previous post. And Again im not debating the knights finances here. Furthermore i'm already a yes voter for the tiake over if u think im not. I was just pointing out the fear mongering.

    ll that, emphasised by the highlight words, is fear mongering.

    To put it comparison, that doesnt relate to knights, so we dont discuss it finances nymore:crazy:


    Keneally saying, a liberal government will ruin NSW to the people of NSW, real potential.... STILL fearmongering

    THe papers reporting about the Doomday of the nuclear plant, blowing up this radiation that..was a potential it could haappe, through quite small, but the papers exaggerated the facts and is by all accounts .... fear mongering

    Either way i doubt this needs any more consideration of the matter
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2011

Share This Page