The Tinkler thread

I don't know what I want, without Tinkler we get rid of all the media bs, all the speculation & we don't have to worry about his financial position all the time. But then the dream will be over & I really don't want to go back to the old management, atleast keep this one or buy a new one.
 
Alicia said:
Approaching Burraston and Tew to return though, it's like were stepping backwards... if the club does go back to the club members who still seem to be living in the 19th century of how things operate.

At least current management are always moving forward (with the exception of Tinklers cash flow issues)

So yes, we will gain the 20 mil and gain major sponsors, but we will be back to the same system who screwed us in the first place.
Click to expand...
We weren't screwed. We are one of only two clubs that never got a bail out before Tinks, and without his money we would have struggled on. It's a myth that he saved us - but the extra money should have made us a better club. When we have good results in the next few years he should get a lot of the credit.
 
Getting Tew and Burraston back in will prove to be a massive mistake, and it has little to do with their ability (or lackthereof) to run our club profitably. The problem with these two is they will run the club as their personal plaything, with scant/nil consideration for the wishes of the board or the members they represent. It happened for years in the past, and it will happen again. Note that I specify wishes, specifically... I don't believe that they won't believe they are serving our best interests, but they don't give a toss what we, or the board, think about it. This is my own opinion based upon my knowledge on how the club was operating pre-Tinkler from the mouth of a couple of ex-board members from previous eras that I can't name for somewhat obvious reasons. I attained some of this knowledge during the takeover drive by Tinkler, when he was "schmoozing" relevant stakeholders at the Knights... and some of it much beforehand.

By the end of the takeover, we still had to pry the club from Burrastons chubby mitts. Anyone remember the look on his face when the vote passed? He was about the only man in the room that couldn't be happy for the club that night. He was a part of the 3%... even in the face of a deal that was so stupendously in fabvour of the club. In fact, with a little bit of digging, I think you'll find he was a driving force behind that last 3%.

No doubt I'll be banned in short order, I'm not well liked around these parts... but I'm here for no reason other than to share my educated opinion on the Tew/Burraston combination returning to the club. That, and I knew the exact lines that Billy would be pushing in here re: Burraston, and wished to provide some counter-points that not many others can potentially provide. An undisputable truth about Tinklers takeover is that the wishes of the members and the community were, and have continued to be met. This is for obvious reasons, too - it's the only good PR our owner can get. Budget or not, this was not the prerogative of our previous administration, and I don't believe it would be moving forward, either.
 
Last edited:
I just don't want this 20 million to disappear and I'm sure with the old management they could do it effortlessly.
 
Who says Tew and Burraston walk back into their jobs? If the club was not under the ownership of the HSG/Tinkler wouldn't the board then have the biggest say? (after possibly the members electing/re-electing the board, I don't know if the HSG appointments get forced out but I don't think they should either)

Plus we already have Matt Gidley as the CEO, who with his qualifications should have no big issues transitioning into the financial side even if there is some kind of assistant bought back on board.

Also Burraston did what any negotiator would do by knocking back the original Tinkler offer, just like Tinkler held back on his initial offer. No one goes all out when negotiating on the first attempt.
 
I can't see Tinkler going and I most definitely can't see Burraston ever setting foot on Turton Road again
 
Stick with Tinkler for long haul

Jack Newton urges Knights fans to stick by Nathan Tinkler

By Paul Crawley

273203-tinkler.jpg

Embattled Newcastle Knights and Jets owner Nathan Tinkler.

NEWCASTLE sporting legend Jack Newton has called on Knights fans to remember what life was like before Nathan Tinkler arrived to bail the club out of financial trouble.

With speculation the cashed-strapped mining magnate will today be asked to part ways with his $20 million bank guarantee and allow the Knights Members Club board to take over the licence and the day-to-day running of the club, Newton said what should not be ignored, or forgotten, was the dire financial predicament that preceded Tinkler's takeover.

"Only the people on the inside knew how bad it was," Newton said.

"They had all sorts of debts ... they were insolvent, there is no doubt about it. And they had been right on the brink for many, many years quite frankly.

"My advice now would be just sit tight and let's see what happens.

"I just don't think they have given him a fair go. They were happy to cop his $20 million and the bloke is in a bit of strife now and they want to hang him."

The Australian Taxation Office last week moved to wind up the Tinkler-owned Knights and the Newcastle Jets, as well as parent company Hunter Sports Group, over unpaid debts of approximately $2.7 million.

A hearing has been set for February 20 but Hunter Sports Group has vowed to make the payment well ahead of that date.

Newton was one of the high-profile Newcastle personalities who publicly backed Tinkler's takeover in 2011 and at the time the club's number one supporter was highly critical of the former board and management.

Since Tinkler gained control Newcastle's membership has sky-rocketed from 4500 to 17,000 and along with signing one of the NRL's best coaches, Wayne Bennett, the players now have a state-of-the-art training facility.

There is speculation former chief executive Steve Burraston and ex-chairman Rob Tew have been approached about making a return should Tinkler be forced out but Newton added: "All of them are putting their hand up saying they will get back in and fix it, well, I've got news for them. They didn't fix it before so they are not going to fix it this time.

"I personally think the media are after Nathan Tinkler. I mean, it never stops. I don't think he is broke at all. I think he is like a lot of rich blokes, he is cash poor.

"Look, as you know a lot of wealthy people and the big companies are slow paying their bills. I have only met Nathan a couple of times but I think his intentions here are honourable.

"The Newcastle fans are a passionate lot, there is no doubt about that.

"And they want answers. But look, I think in all fairness there is a bit of a witch hunt on for (Tinkler's) neck."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...y-nathan-tinkler/story-e6frexnr-1226537916759

 
Bingo - What benefit is there in booting Tinkler? Ok maybe our players will have one less thing to worry about. What benefits are there in keeping him? We won't have to worry about money! that 20m will be spent in two or three seasons and then we are fkd once again! whats wrong with people
 
R_A said:
Who says Tew and Burraston walk back into their jobs? If the club was not under the ownership of the HSG/Tinkler wouldn't the board then have the biggest say? (after possibly the members electing/re-electing the board, I don't know if the HSG appointments get forced out but I don't think they should either)

Plus we already have Matt Gidley as the CEO, who with his qualifications should have no big issues transitioning into the financial side even if there is some kind of assistant bought back on board.

Also Burraston did what any negotiator would do by knocking back the original Tinkler offer, just like Tinkler held back on his initial offer. No one goes all out when negotiating on the first attempt.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mark how in the world would we blow 20mill in 2 years? Lets say sponsorship returns to pre Tinkler levels the club would have
Bank guarantee 20m
NRL Club Handout 14m
Sponsorship 14.6m
Plus merchandise,memberships and gate takings. So we would have at least 48.6m over the next two years, if we continued to spend the entire salary cap that would see the entire NRL handout gone. To claim we would lose the 20m in 2 years is ridiculous, the club would be better with Tinkler in the long term but unless is financial situation improves then it may be in the interests of both parties to dissolve the arrangement now. Also I think it is pitiful the fear campaign being run by some supporters claiming we will be broke without Tinkler and speaks volumes for those supporters integrity or lack there of.
 
Facts are Tinkler is dirty rich, he is having a bad trot at the moment because he doesn't have access to cash..

This club will be twice as successful with him than without him, in the long term and probably still in short term. Who's going to pay Bennett? Who's going to put 2.5m a year into junior development? All that revenue you mentioned is an average income in the NRL, one which is often supported by a leagues club. Not to mention those numbers are highly likely to drop off over the next ccouple seasons.

What lacks integrity Quinny, is the selfish action of using Tinkler. He has pulled us from the scrap heap at a great financial cost to him. Now you want to treat him like what he's given us is ours and we deserve it? Kick him to the curb when he needs our patients to see that this is very much a short term issue, and issue which is made to look worse than it is by speculative criticism.

If you think that we would be better off without Tinkler, you don't understand how the world works
 
Mark said:
Facts are Tinkler is dirty rich, he is having a bad trot at the moment because he doesn't have access to cash..

This club will be twice as successful with him than without him, in the long term and probably still in short term. Who's going to pay Bennett? Who's going to put 2.5m a year into junior development? All that revenue you mentioned is an average income in the NRL, one which is often supported by a leagues club. Not to mention those numbers are highly likely to drop off over the next ccouple seasons.

What lacks integrity Quinny, is the selfish action of using Tinkler. He has pulled us from the scrap heap at a great financial cost to him. Now you want to treat him like what he's given us is ours and we deserve it? Kick him to the curb when he needs our patients to see that this is very much a short term issue, and issue which is made to look worse than it is by speculative criticism.

If you think that we would be better off without Tinkler, you don't understand how the world works
Click to expand...

Tinkler has gained a lot from the Knights you would have to be a fool or very naive to not see that. I already said the best situation is is Tinkler recovers and retains the club although no one knows Tinklers true financial situation so to claim his dirty rich is a bit much. Also depending on your view on economic rationalism plays a significant role in how we should treat Tinkler. I believe when someone takes so much wealth out of the community they are morally obligated to return some of that wealth to the public stock.
 
Mark said:
Facts are Tinkler is dirty rich, he is having a bad trot at the moment because he doesn't have access to cash..

This club will be twice as successful with him than without him, in the long term and probably still in short term. Who's going to pay Bennett? Who's going to put 2.5m a year into junior development? All that revenue you mentioned is an average income in the NRL, one which is often supported by a leagues club. Not to mention those numbers are highly likely to drop off over the next ccouple seasons.

What lacks integrity Quinny, is the selfish action of using Tinkler. He has pulled us from the scrap heap at a great financial cost to him. Now you want to treat him like what he's given us is ours and we deserve it? Kick him to the curb when he needs our patients to see that this is very much a short term issue, and issue which is made to look worse than it is by speculative criticism.

If you think that we would be better off without Tinkler, you don't understand how the world works
Click to expand...

Agree, we as supporters need to do more to show our support to tinkler, I don't know how but would be great if we could get through to the media somehow that we appreciate what he has brought to our club. IMO a lot of the critics are just jealous at what we have
 
Quinny said:
Tinkler has gained a lot from the Knights you would have to be a fool or very naive to not see that. I already said the best situation is is Tinkler recovers and retains the club although no one knows Tinklers true financial situation so to claim his dirty rich is a bit much. Also depending on your view on economic rationalism plays a significant role in how we should treat Tinkler. I believe when someone takes so much wealth out of the community they are morally obligated to return some of that wealth to the public stock.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top