He would be in a battle with Clive Palmer for the title of least respected businessman in the country if he hadn't chipped in a few dollars for the Knights.Maybe i am naive but please explain to me what he has gained from the Knights besides the fact that he has the pleasure of owning the team .
He would be in a battle with Clive Palmer for the title of least respected businessman in the country if he hadn't chipped in a few dollars for the Knights.
He would be in a battle with Clive Palmer for the title of least respected businessman in the country if he hadn't chipped in a few dollars for the Knights.
Anyone who supported Tinkler and now wants him gone should rip up their membership and never consider themselves a Knights fan again.
Burraston would have knocked back any offer from Tinkler, if it were his decision to make. He was pushing his patrons trust model 100%, and couldn't see past it. The patrons trust was ok in theory - although strictly inferior to Tinklers offer, but there was too much smoke and too many mirrors around it for mine. I didn't like that Andrew Poole was the only personality willing to be public on that. I prefer transparency, personally.
Exactly and I am a member who supported Tinkler(never voted) but unless his financial position improves and he changes the way he does business in regards to the knights, I see no other way then for us to part company. The negative publicity Tinklers business practices are generating is extremely damaging to the knights especially considering there business is so reliant on sponsors.
That is if Tinkler remains with the club long term but if he goes bankrupt at any point then the club could be in a bad position with its ability to attract sponsors due to potential damage done by Tinklers business practices. Even currently the majority of our sponsors are Tinkler owned companies or business partners with many other companies staying away from the club due to Tinkler.