Tinkler walks away from Knights

[Guest]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1226009364159

[supermario]

maybe, when the Sharks vote tonight goes up the shitter, the knights and sharks can merge and move to the Central coast !

[Guest]

Knights fans seem to be filthy at Tinkler..

He is going to be the richest man in Australia one day,so playing hard ball with him was always going to be risky (bordering on suicidal)..

While both sides seem to be at fault,albeit on differing levels,Newcastle need his backing to move the club into the modern ages..

Tinkler probably could've shown more patience i'll admit..but he is holding "the whip" on the sale..He has the CA$H..Newcastle still don't have a leagues club for faarks sake..

They have "looked a gift horse in the mouth" on this one..

They want to hope Tinkler has a re-think..

[Vasco]

What a farce.

Talk about bone heads.

Seriously, the board meeting should have taken all of 30 seconds.

How can a couple of people make this decision simply based on self interests.

[Guest]

I get the feeling this may not be over yet. Lets wait and see what happens next. kade Snowden must be feeling a little silly about now.

[supermario]

Not being privy to the specific details, some things that have come out that the board has questioned was Tinklers $10mill/year offer.

Apparently tinkler would only cover the remaining difference between the Money the knights get in sponsorship and the $10mill mark, effectivly, if the knights made $10 mill in sponsorship, tinkler would pay nothing.

The knights understood the deal to be $10mill on top of sponsorship and are not keen on Tinklers idea of the deal.

Also, apparently tinkler did not include any provisions regarding junior rugby league, which the knights also want included.

This could turn very messy for the knights

[Guest]

What a farce.

Talk about bone heads.

Seriously, the board meeting should have taken all of 30 seconds.

How can a couple of people make this decision simply based on self interests.

Tinkler has changed some of the conditions relating to the 100mill, and was trying to steamroll the Knights into taking the deal

[Guest]

You would think they would of made a deal. It's easier said then done but the guy has plenty and has done well with patinack and has rescued the jets.

I mean what I find funny is that souffs sold themselves to Rusty for a one off payment of 3.5 million. 3.5 million for the supposed "pride of the league".

[Cockadoodledoo]

wonder how Kade Snowden feels.

[Cockadoodledoo]

Tinkler has changed some of the conditions relating to the 100mill, and was trying to steamroll the Knights into taking the deal

could well be.. A guy doesn't get as rich as he is without being ruthless.

[supermario]

The Knights probably did themselves a favour not falling into bed with Tinkler.

If there are as many fundamental changes to the original contract as has been reported, the knights would have been reamed severely !!!

Tinkler is a wolf in sheeps clothing, regardless of the money, the knights were smart to err on the side of caution.

[Vasco]

The Knights probably did themselves a favour not falling into bed with Tinkler.

If there are as many fundamental changes to the original contract as has been reported, the knights would have been reamed severely !!!

Tinkler is a wolf in sheeps clothing, regardless of the money, the knights were smart to err on the side of caution.

The club is run like a pub team.

Why do you think Smith left as soon as the Roosters knocked on the door?

They will continue to be a pub team playing in a professional competition.

Let's be serious here.

Newcastle Knights board have rejected $100 million of funding for 10 years - that's $10 MILLION PER YEAR which would basically solve their cashflow problems and allow them to be a serious player in the NRL competition for the next decade.

[supermario]

Thats not the case Vasco,

the original papers lodged showed that tinkler would give $10mill on top of the revenue the Knights would make. When the final documents were handed over all tinkler was going to pay was the difference between the revenue and $10 mill, according to the knights, their revenue is around the $10mill mark already.

So the 10 mill per year is not specifically 10 mill ayear on it's own. obviously there are other factors that have come into it as well, no guarantee for 10 years, only 2, no provisions for junior rugby league and development....

while the $100mill over 10 years is a tempting carrot, it looks as though the fine print had half the carrot taken away already.

[Andrew Walker]

Thats not the case Vasco,

the original papers lodged showed that tinkler would give $10mill on top of the revenue the Knights would make. When the final documents were handed over all tinkler was going to pay was the difference between the revenue and $10 mill, according to the knights, their revenue is around the $10mill mark already.

So the 10 mill per year is not specifically 10 mill ayear on it's own. obviously there are other factors that have come into it as well, no guarantee for 10 years, only 2, no provisions for junior rugby league and development....

while the $100mill over 10 years is a tempting carrot, it looks as though the fine print had half the carrot taken away already.

Tinkler is a master when it comes to fine print My Daughter who rides some work for a guy who trains a few horses for him up here was only telling me the othere day about how a clause in the fine print left a horse ineligible for a 1 million bonus for winnind the two legs of the Blue Diamond Prelude and then the Blue Diamond The fine priont stipulated that each race must have a minimum of 12 runers There was only 11 in the 2nd leg the horse won,thus making him inelible for the bonus. It was very smeaky, Knights did well to read the fine print

[Guest]

I guess it is a wait and see situation, it will be interesting to see what ensues over the next month.

Supermario, just on that comment of yours, if the Knights current revenue was already 10mil then you would think they wouldn't have any issues at all, however they do acknowledge they have financial issues?