Tinkler's $100M offer - It's back on

Percy said:
Oh I get it so he's credible enough to have a stand named after him but he is not credible enough to make a statement regarding the future of the club.

Hmm yeah makes complete sense.
Click to expand...

Has Joey even shown any interest in running for the new board ? . I'm not being a smart arse I just haven't heard anything about it
 
Frosty,

First things first Burro is CEO, he is not on the board, he is appointed by them.

If their was a vote of no-confidence in the board there would have to be meeting called to vote in another board, in the interim the CEO would take care of the running of the Knights (Burro)

when the nominations come up new people would have to nominate to become board members, you would assume that there would be 2 groups running, the Tinkler supporters and those opposed to privatisations (the tickets).

If the Tinkler ticket were to win a majority they would be appointed to the board then they could resign Burro as CEO (if they want) and re-instate negotiations with Tinkler, if he still wants.

At some point they would have to determine whether the concerns of the previous board are enough to continue negotiating or forget about and leave Tinkler to do as he pleases.

Long Messy and drawn out, it would be like June before this was concluded.
 
carbonclay said:
Has Joey even shown any interest in running for the new board ? . I'm not being a smart arse I just haven't heard anything about it
Click to expand...


Not to my knowledge, how is that relevant?

Matty Johns had a say not long ago, nobody battered an eye lid.

What's the problem with Andrew having a say?

He is well entitled to an opinion.
 
Percy said:
Oh so now aside from his past off field indiscretions, he doesn't get a say because he's not a notable public speaker?

Isn't he a lifelong member of the club? Because if he is than you my friend are wrong. He would be well in right to state his opinion just like any other Knights member.
Click to expand...

Geeeeeeeeez Percy :lol: It's like telling a fat chick that cup cakes are no good for her having a discussion with you. She will always find a way to say that they are not the reason for her not being able to see her feet anymore.

I love your passion. Great stuff.
 
Magumba said:
Geeeeeeeeez Percy :lol: It's like telling a fat chick that cup cakes are no good for her having a discussion with you. She will always find a way to say that they are not the reason for her not being able to see her feet anymore.

I love your passion. Great stuff.
Click to expand...


:lol::lol::lol:

Poor guy he's copped so much flak over the years, now people want to shut him up. Not you I mean Johns.
 
I don't mean to play the devils advocate but could the below scenario occur based on Tinkler's proposal? I've been doing some reading.

Tinkler buys the Knights and over 2 years pumps 4 million into the club to top up the 10 million scenario. After the 2 years he gets a phone call from John Singleton regarding the possibility of selling the Knights for say 10 million (6 million profit) as he has an empty stadium at Gosford. Tinkler agrees and the Newcastle Knights become the Central Coast Bears.

Can Tinkler do this in his proposal or do the members get as say by way of a vote?
 
Last edited:
Magumba said:
I don't mean to play the devils advocate but could the below scenario occur based on Tinkler's proposal? I've been doing some reading.

Tinkler buys the Knights and over 2 years pumps 4 million into the club to top up the 10 million scenario. After the 2 years he gets a phone call from John Singleton regarding the possibility of selling the Knights for say 10 million (6 million profit) as he has an empty stadium at Gosford. Tinkler agrees and the Newcastle Knights become the Central Coast Bears.

Can Tinkler do this in his proposal or do the members get as say by way of a vote?
Click to expand...

Yes he could, however you need to ask why he would?

He is buying the Newcastle Knights, they will always make more money as the Knights than playing at Gosford. He will initially have to put in 4Mil to pay for the current debt and then will have to put in money to pay for coaches if he wants to buy a good one and top ups for additional costs.

If he wanted the CC Bears he would join them now and have them up and running, but he doesn't want that.

This appears to be the major sticking point in the negotiation, the board wanted a clause to say he had to sell back to members as a first option, he didn't see the need for the clause apparently.
 
Last edited:
Maddog78 said:
Yes he could, however you need to ask why he would?

He is buying the Newcastle Knights, they will always make more money as the Knights than playing at Gosford. He willn initially have to put in 4Mil to pay for the current debt and then will have to put in money to pay for coaches if he wantas to buy a good one and top ups.

If he wanted the CC Bears he would join them now and have them up and running, but he doesn't want that.

This appears to be the major sticking point in the negotiation, the bpard wanted a clause to say he had to sell back to members as a first optio, he didn't see the need for the clause apparently.
Click to expand...

True. Just thinking out loud.

Thanks Maddog
 
what i am hearing from a source at NIB and coal and allied is that they are going to announce in the next few days that they will not be sponsoring the newcastle knights past this season because of the way they have handled the tinkler situation
 
timmy_18 said:
what i am hearing from a source at NIB and coal and allied is that they are going to announce in the next few days that they will not be sponsoring the newcastle knights past this season because of the way they have handled the tinkler situation
Click to expand...
It honestly wouldn't surprise me or most people as a matter of fact.
This situation imo has been soooo messed up :fist::fist::crazy:
 
Newy97 said:
It honestly wouldn't surprise me or most people as a matter of fact.
This situation imo has been soooo messed up :fist::fist::crazy:
Click to expand...


true newy97 but yes my source from both businesses have informed me that it is the form of action they will most likely be taking
 
It has also been stated in the paper as well.

I just hope this whole Tinkler saga is sorted before season starts. Some of the players are following the situation closely and i dare say it will be a disatraction if things arent sorted soon.
 
See had they signed on with Tinkler he would have to contribute to replenish those sponsorships, with the Patrons model we will have to spend that money and replenish it.

What sounds better off now?
 
Maddog78 said:
See had they signed on with Tinkler he would have to contribute to replenish those sponsorships, with the Patrons model we will have to spend that money and replenish it.

What sounds better off now?
Click to expand...

They want Tinkler joining the Patrons model? Well we'll be owing Tinkler more money then :think:
 
Sammyyy said:
They want Tinkler joining the Patrons model? Well we'll be owing Tinkler more money then :think:
Click to expand...

The money contributed to the trust cannot be withdrawn by the contributors, so any money taken will only be repayable to the trust.

Its like they are opening a big bank account but they are keeping the log in details so that money must be approved before it is withdrawn,

From what I hear Tinkler has no interest in joining them.
 
Doesnt anybody find it funny how Tinkler wants to bring local talent back to the club..and the board are accusing him of not putting money into developing local talent when he takesover when he is all for local talent?!
 
because people are scared he will fk us over. people are scared because he hasnt detailed every single little variable into his contact. people want it on paper and are not happy to accept words and good faith.

Me, i'd vote yes regardles, but if does end belly up well, tough titties, thats life really? just a chuck of the dice, cant predict the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top