Printable View
Gotta be honest, there wasn't a whole deal in the Toohey/Tinkler interview that I disagreed with - apart from the 5 players thing. To me, Tinkler isn't exactly saying many things wrong.
But that interview didn't mention Stubbins at all - who I think is the real issue and the thing that Tinkler is getting wrong here.
FFA want him to see him run the club professionally or they will strip the license
Tinks is saying he won't run the club professionally until he gets assurances that they won't strip the license. He is in no position to make this demand.
This all came to a head because he ran the club unprofessionally by not paying debts and backing the coach, causing the CEO and Chairman to resign, followed by unfair sacking of 5 players and 3 coaches, causing a further coach to resign. He is clearly shown to be negligent in running the club.
Tinks cannot hold a gun to FFAs head. If he wants to keep the club, get everything into shape like it should be. Absolutely ludicrous that he is now asking for the FFA to give assurances that it won't take his license from him with the club in the state it is in.
The fact that he is talking to everyone except Herald reporters shows how much shit we still would have to put up with.
Surely he cant think he is fooling anyone.Get the toys back in the pram and toddle off thanks...
its never been a problem about saying things wrong, its putting his words in to actions is where he comes unstuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
its going to be a battle of the lawyers, tinks ain't going to hand the license back like his mate clive did.
The sacked players wont sign until they are paid.... haha they must have had a few local businesses give them advice!
Tinks - "Here guys, just sign here where it says i owe you $XXXX"
Players sign
Tinks - "Great work guys, now just head to the back of the line of people i owe money to"
I say good on the players, stick it to the fat man!
It all sounds reasonable until you consider that he is the one who put himself in this position.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
He says he wasn't responsible for the last 4 years because he left that to other people.
But when he comes and does take charge he blows the place up. It's not like he consulted anyone for advice or let people know what his strategy was before he took action, he just did what he wanted to do. That's not a good sign for the future IMO.
If he really wants to keep it, he should be the one taking the risk - clearing the debts, appointing a CEO with some kind of assurance that he'll be looked after if the FFA takes over, paying the players who he summarily sacked. The fact that he still wants to do everything to his own timeline shows that he doesn't have what it takes to run a club.
To be fair, this shitstorm started 2 weeks ago or thereabouts. And he has said he has always aimed at clearing the debts, appointing the CEO, and paying out the sacked people in roughly two weeks (mid Feb). A month turnaround for these kind of things, particularly when he's not even based in Newy (he said he's changing that) and has just come onto the scene properly, isn't that unrealistic IMO. The debts he owes would take I imagine a couple of weeks to clear for him to pay, so that's OK (although to be fair, it shouldn't have gotten to this late a stage, but it seems Tinkler has said it hinges on some non-financial arrangements that he'll get the new CEO to do. Regardless, NNSW claim to be a non-profit organisation who have a tonne of leftover cash each year so I don't think they're ceasing to operate without Tinkler's money tbh). Hunting down an appropriate CEO is a length process, apparently he only interviewed guys last week and tabled an offer late last week t one of them, so that process isn't going to happen instantly. The sacked players being paid redundancy or whatever you want to call it is probably the only thing he should have sorted instantly, but again that is being halted as the PFA are seemingly fighting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hausmann
I don't agree with everything he has done but when solely talking timelines, and comparing it to how normal businesses operate, I'm not that worried about the length of time he's taking to sort things tbh.
Righto PalmerQuote:
Originally Posted by pv4
That's the key part of your statement. He's going to the FFA saying, I've personally gone in and ****ed the whole place up so you need to give me the time I need to fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
Everything he's done, he could have done it a different way to ensure a smooth transition through to the winning culture that he apparently wants.
Yes, the FFA could give him the time to fix it, or they can used it as leverage to get rid of him. It's up to them. They may not get another chance like this because they can't just whip the license off him without serious reason and it appears, with Dundee United, all the stars have aligned.
I personally think they would prefer to have an owner that manages change a bit better than how Tinkler has done it.
What an absolute load of BS that is. Is someone going to call him on the fact that the club doesn't have to cover player wages as it is 100% covered by the TV deal? Unless he breaches the cap, there's no issue with player wages and he hasn't put any money in for that.Quote:
NT: Because of a combination of reasons. There are a few things there that I want the new CEO to come in and get on. There are some pretty uncommercial arrangements around the Emerging Jets (junior) program and other areas that I think need restructuring. If I come running in and pay the money, then what happens? Everyone just keeps their hand out. There has been a real hand-out culture at the club to the point where now, even players think they can dominate it. We have started putting money in. You’ve seen players being signed — that doesn’t happen with no money. Getting the roster right has been the first thing we have taken on.
Guess a turd rolled in coal is about the same as a turd rolled in diamonds. **** off, you disease.
thought this exact same thing, knowing tinks but he probably uses the grant to pay off other shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
If he had a better PR rep he'd be seen as a visionary.
Alas....
Didn't someone outline how the salary cap and player payments work recently? I thought he couldn't get his grubby hands on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodyNovo
I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
The FFA uses the TV deal to subsidize the salary cap for all clubs. If they don't use all of the cap, the clubs do not get the leftover money of the cap to use for themselves - the FFA just don't pay them the leftover money.
I'm not sure who pays for the termination of contracts.
From where I'm sitting, you guys are right - the signing players thing doesn't seem to be a valid argument.
Termination of contracts would have to come out of the cap anyway, so I imagine it would be part of the TV monies.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
And I knew it was you, I just didn't want to give you any credit. Gypo.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some form of clause that said clubs had to pay the terminations themselves though. I can't see how the FFA would encourage clubs to sack players, particularly if the PFA had anything to say when the whole CBA etc was arranged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
Why though? Their salaries count towards the cap, the club don't get to get that money back. If it's not covered by the TV money, then it shouldn't be part of the cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
I don't know if it is the case, but I was just guessing it could potentially be so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
If it was, it would be to discourage clubs from sacking their players, and to either reach a mutual termination or to just keep their players - something I would have thought the PFA would want to see in most cases.
Tinkler can't base himself here or even in the country. Allegedly he has a massive tax bill that he avoids by having residency status in Singapore. He moves back here and the bill will have to be paid. You reckon he can cope with that? His hands-on running of the club is short term
Well, isn't that the whole point? They haven't been sacked - the only one is Carney and that's been disputed. The rest are mutual terminations... and even Carney was offered a mutual termination, which he declined, before the club tried to sack him.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4