Why Rugby League is crap

[MFKS]

You sure have to wonder about these blokes running the Knights Members trust thing.

Spent the last week or two hammering on in the media about Tinks and taking back the club from him.

Considering Tinks is notorious for 11th hour saves what's the issue any deal hasn't been done by now??

The motivations of these people are rather poor. Can easily make moves behind the scenes on the Quiet to be prepared for the worst. Not these people who seem to have some great desire to hammer HSG/Tinks in the media despite at this stage him not actually having breached any part of the deal or actually gone against his claims,


Poor buggers are so desperate to get their hands on the 10million bank guarantee greed has taken over.
Hope that if Tinks does bail on them the debts he have are that bad the bank guarantee is swallowed up and they get nothing

[plague]

You sure have to wonder about these blokes running the Knights Members trust thing.

Spent the last week or two hammering on in the media about Tinks and taking back the club from him.

Considering Tinks is notorious for 11th hour saves what's the issue any deal hasn't been done by now??

The motivations of these people are rather poor. Can easily make moves behind the scenes on the Quiet to be prepared for the worst. Not these people who seem to have some great desire to hammer HSG/Tinks in the media despite at this stage him not actually having breached any part of the deal or actually gone against his claims,


Poor buggers are so desperate to get their hands on the 10million bank guarantee greed has taken over.
Hope that if Tinks does bail on them the debts he have are that bad the bank guarantee is swallowed up and they get nothing

Nah, Tinks has wiped all the debts (approx $8m). If he lets the deadline lapse he forfeits the club but not the $10m.
The Members get the club back but no capital and remember these are the same bunch of crooks and idiots that got them into trouble in the first place.
Agree though, poking the bear is never a good idea, especially a bear who has proven time after time to give exactly zero ****s what people think of him.

As stated elsewhere, the Jets are at least something HSG can sell so I can't see him giving up on us as easily.

Honestly I hope he does **** the Knights over and let them fend for themselves.

[WolfMan]

Perhaps then we could bring back the gold?

[Premy]

I work just next to Knoughts HQ and Lara Pitt and the Fox Sports crew have been hanging around all day could just be a coincidence or they could be here about the whole Alex McKinnon situation.
P.S Lara Pitt is a babe

[MFKS]

Nah, Tinks has wiped all the debts (approx $8m). If he lets the deadline lapse he forfeits the club but not the $10m.
The Members get the club back but no capital and remember these are the same bunch of crooks and idiots that got them into trouble in the first place.
Agree though, poking the bear is never a good idea, especially a bear who has proven time after time to give exactly zero ****s what people think of him.

As stated elsewhere, the Jets are at least something HSG can sell so I can't see him giving up on us as easily.

Honestly I hope he does **** the Knights over and let them fend for themselves.

I think you will find if this deadline by the end of March lapses not only does he forfeit the Knoughts for $1 but his 10 million in the bank guarantee is also able to be claimed by the new buyer ie the Members Club of the Knoughts.

Be interesting to see though if this eventuates whether they actually get it.

You never know how much money he owes the Bank in question, ATO etc who may nip in and claim it before the Knoughts Supporters get it and also by Commonwealth Law may be more entitled to it than the Knoughts

[Pico]

The members club will get exactly what was allowed for in the guarantee. This guarantee is not linked to Tinklers assets nor is it some pile of Tinks cash in some Westpac account somewhere. This is a liability that the bank has assumed on behalf of Tinkler, usually after assessing if he has the capacity to meet his debts. They would be charging him for the privilege of them issuing the guarantee, the ATO can’t just come and take the $10m of westpacs money and claim it was Tinklers cash, it’s the very reason it is the safety net for a private run club with a potentially volatile owner.

The members club has done everything they should be doing imo, they have not taken his cash, they haven’t shifted the goalposts, well they did they gave Tinks an interim 2 month deal to help save some cash which is what is running out now. All they have done is initiate the process required by the bank in the even that nothing materialises prior to the cut off point for the existing guarantee.

I’d be more concerned that the jets don’t have a similar sort of deal, should HSG be sparing on things like taxes or super, once the deal is done for the members to take over the knights, HSG would still be liable for these sorts of shortfalls under their reign. This could have bigger implications on the jets after the knights run away now debt free, $10m in the bank and the possible feel good PR story for sponsors to jump on board and help restore/rescue the knights. For example will aurizon really stick with the jets after the knights run away, same for Nib, Klosters, ISC (hooray) etc. At what levels would they we willing to stay, now that HSG can’t offer the year round sponsor arrangements which was one of their selling points.

[MFKS]

What worries are their as a Jets fan if Tinks goes under??

We then get to be the bastard child of the FFA until they can sell us off. May mean we get some decent refereeing calls some competent admin and we can apparently rip flares for a long time without sanction

They will be stuck dealing with us as they are forced to have 10 teams due to their TV deal they are tied to.


That being said in light of Tinks ongoing financial issues in the last 12 months or so I would be surprised if the FFA aren't prepared for the event already having sourced possible new owners

[De-Champ]

The members club will get exactly what was allowed for in the guarantee. This guarantee is not linked to Tinklers assets nor is it some pile of Tinks cash in some Westpac account somewhere. This is a liability that the bank has assumed on behalf of Tinkler, usually after assessing if he has the capacity to meet his debts. They would be charging him for the privilege of them issuing the guarantee, the ATO can’t just come and take the $10m of westpacs money and claim it was Tinklers cash, it’s the very reason it is the safety net for a private run club with a potentially volatile owner.

The members club has done everything they should be doing imo, they have not taken his cash, they haven’t shifted the goalposts, well they did they gave Tinks an interim 2 month deal to help save some cash which is what is running out now. All they have done is initiate the process required by the bank in the even that nothing materialises prior to the cut off point for the existing guarantee.

I’d be more concerned that the jets don’t have a similar sort of deal, should HSG be sparing on things like taxes or super, once the deal is done for the members to take over the knights, HSG would still be liable for these sorts of shortfalls under their reign. This could have bigger implications on the jets after the knights run away now debt free, $10m in the bank and the possible feel good PR story for sponsors to jump on board and help restore/rescue the knights. For example will aurizon really stick with the jets after the knights run away, same for Nib, Klosters, ISC (hooray) etc. At what levels would they we willing to stay, now that HSG can’t offer the year round sponsor arrangements which was one of their selling points.

Its not a liability. It is cash to the value of $10m (plus interest) sitting in the bank as a guarantee. In relaity it is a bank cheque (piece of paper with $10M on it)

[Pico]

Its not a liability. It is cash to the value of $10m (plus interest) sitting in the bank as a guarantee. In relaity it is a bank cheque (piece of paper with $10M on it)

Unless I'm mistaken it's a liability to Westpac and whoever the other lender is. They take responsibility for the debt to the third party should their client, Tinks, HSG or the tooth fairy, fails to meet their obligations to that third party. Westpac should have taken on board that liability by doing their due diligence on whether Tinkler had the capacity to service the set terms.

As for the FFA taking us in, talk to the fury about how well that worked out for them. Nothing stopping Tinkler from selling off our talent pocketing the transfer fees and then strangling the club financially until the FFA take his license away, but then I'm not exactly sure how that's meant to be a good thing for the clubs fans.

[MFKS]

Unless I'm mistaken it's a liability to Westpac and whoever the other lender is. They take responsibility for the debt to the third party should their client, Tinks, HSG or the tooth fairy, fails to meet their obligations to that third party. Westpac should have taken on board that liability by doing their due diligence on whether Tinkler had the capacity to service the set terms.

As for the FFA taking us in, talk to the fury about how well that worked out for them. Nothing stopping Tinkler from selling off our talent pocketing the transfer fees and then strangling the club financially until the FFA take his license away, but then I'm not exactly sure how that's meant to be a good thing for the clubs fans.

What happened with the Fury is irrelevant.

We have a fan base we have juniors we have interest in our club. They had none of this and the FFA were the ones who pulled the pin on this club as it was never gonna be fixed short term.


The only thing we lack is financial resources and most of that is down to being a smaller city than the rest of the HAL Clubs bar the Coast.

Our issues can be fixed short term with the right investment mix

[De-Champ]

Unless I'm mistaken it's a liability to Westpac and whoever the other lender is. They take responsibility for the debt to the third party should their client, Tinks, HSG or the tooth fairy, fails to meet their obligations to that third party. Westpac should have taken on board that liability by doing their due diligence on whether Tinkler had the capacity to service the set terms.

As for the FFA taking us in, talk to the fury about how well that worked out for them. Nothing stopping Tinkler from selling off our talent pocketing the transfer fees and then strangling the club financially until the FFA take his license away, but then I'm not exactly sure how that's meant to be a good thing for the clubs fans.

No... No liability. How can it be a liability. There is a guarantee - an amount of cash- deposited into a bank account - that sits there. If a certain event happens it triggers an action to be taken. In short the knights members have access to the cash if it is not renewed bby the due date. No liability to Westpac. There is no lending... The media reported it as a third party (which is the greater building society) in effect Tinkler has obtained money from the greater to add to the guarantee, ie interest on it.

[Premy]

Should be something on Fox Sports News soon, after trying to find out for awhile why Fox have been hanging around and getting several different stories from knoughts staff. Gidley has just finished a interview with Lara and there has been suits in and out all day. No sign of Tinks or Palmer but

[MFKS]

NATHAN Tinkler edged closer yesterday to defaulting on his commitments as Newcastle Knights owner but has not given up hope of retaining control of the club.

Tinkler has until close of business on Monday to secure a $10.52million replacement bank guarantee, a key component in the terms and conditions of his 2011 takeover.

But the latest twist in negotiations suggests this may not happen, which would entitle the Knights Members Club to start the process of buying back the club for $1 from the struggling tycoon.

The next step towards that outcome will occur today, when members club chairman Nick Dan accesses the existing bank guarantee, which expires on Monday, and collects cheques of $10.3million from Westpac and $220,000 from the Greater Newcastle Building Society.

Those cheques will be deposited in a joint-signatory account, accessible only when HSG and the members club concur.

In the meantime, Knights chairman Paul Harragon and CEO Matt Gidley have held last-ditch negotiations with the members club and the NRL in an effort to create a new ‘‘unified’’ business structure.

How this can be achieved remains to be seen, but if a new bank guarantee is not in place by 5pm on Monday, Tinkler will have reneged on his obligations and the members club will have the upper hand in any negotiations.

It would then appear HSG would need to produce an extraordinary proposal to persuade the members club not to activate the process of buying the club back for $1.

Alternatively, the NRL could step in to broker a ‘‘restructure’’ of the Knights at management level, as the governing body has done this month with Wests Tigers.

‘‘HSG has been in fruitful discussion with the NRL to identify a unified business model to ensure the long-term future of the Knights.’’ - KNIGHTS STATEMENT

But it is understood the NRL would be reluctant to override the rights of the members, as agreed when Tinkler privatised the Knights on March 31, 2011.

In a statement issued last night, the Knights said HSG had ‘‘allowed’’ the current bank guarantee to be transferred into a joint-signatory bank account.

‘‘HSG has been in fruitful discussion with the NRL over a period of time to identify a unified business model to ensure the long-term future of the Knights,’’ the club said.

‘‘This guarantee has been placed in a secure bank account with joint signatories being HSG and the members club while negotiations between the members club, the Knights and the NRL continue. The current ownership model and management team will remain in place throughout the duration of these discussions.

‘‘No further comment will be provided by any parties involved during this period of negotiation.’’

In a list of ‘‘key points’’, the statement added that the Knights, members club and NRL would ‘‘undertake negotiation to identify a new model moving forward’’ and HSG remains committed to contributing and supporting the Knights ‘‘into the future’’.

The statement made no mention of whether HSG could raise a replacement bank guarantee, valid for the next 12 months, by Monday.

HSG has repeatedly assured fans that a replacement guarantee would be in place by the due date.

HSG chief executive Troy Palmer told the Herald last night that it would be ‘‘wrong’’ to suggest HSG had conceded the surety would not be in place by Monday.

When asked why there was no mention of a replacement bank guarantee in last night’s statement, he replied: ‘‘There will be no further comment from either party.’’

Dan was also reluctant to comment, other than to confirm he hoped to collect $10.52million in cheques today after allowing ‘‘the bank and building society to dot their i’s and cross their t’s.’’

‘‘Fruitful discussions took place today with the HSG representatives,’’ Dan said.

‘‘Basically the all-clear was given for the financial institutions to release the monies held in the guarantees.’’

The bank guarantee was the ‘‘safety net’’ that underpinned Tinkler’s takeover bid.

It was initially valued at $20million for two years then $10million, plus inflation, for the next eight years.

A bank guarantee worth $10.3million expired on January 31, when it was expected to be replaced by one worth $10.52million for the next 12 months.

Instead, HSG negotiated a two-month interim extension, on the premise that this would save $500,000 in bank fees.

HSG promised to have a new guarantee, valid until January 31, 2015, in place by March 31.

Interesting whats going on with this change of model thing they are after??

I am confused?? They already have 100% control so why the need for change??

Maybe Tinks is trying to get rid of the bank guarantee in future from the equation??


Wouldn't put it past HSG with their history to use the situation for a bit of extortion to get more favourable outcomes for themselves

[Pico]

It’s over, HSG will be down to one club very shortly. Nick Dan is not an idiot, he called a spade a spade when he was on the Knights advisory board (how’s that going, looks like it went the same way as the jets board) and they sacked him quick smart, silly Palmer and co should have had the sense to wait until the members club elections were completed before they did that, now they have someone who knows intimately how they operate.

You’ve got to love the pathetic attempt at PR spin from HSG, they “agreed to allow” the guarantee to be placed into the joint account, yeah it was all down to the grace of HSG, had nothing to do with the terms of the contract they signed when the club was privatised. Do these blokes really believe the shit they spread.

Going to be interesting times ahead, how long will tinks push on with the jets license, will the FFA step in or do they already have a plan B, how many of these new found sponsors will stick with the jets now there will be no HSG year round coverage, Will Bennett take over from Zane now that his HSG contact won’t allow him to coach the knights.

We may not win things in Newcastle, hell we are borderline competitive these days in sport, but we know how to entertain off the pitch.

[plague]

De-champ, Pico is right.
A bank guarantee is like an insurance policy.
HSG pay a fee to the bank that if in the event of them defaulting on their commitments the bank pays out the $10m then goes after HSG for compensation.
Once the bank guarantee expires (31/3) the bank is off the hook and will not pay out anything, nor will Tinkler be liable to the bank. There is not $10m of HSG money sitting in a bank account. Members are going after that guarantee now as they know after 31/3 they will be left with nowt.
I have used bank guarantees in the past mostly for rental bonds on commercial properties, trust me, this is how they work.

[plague]

Ok, after reading the press release it says that the Members have executed that bank guarantee, so now there technically is $10m (of Westpacs) money sitting in an account.

Edit 2: RUH ROH, looks like it hasn't been paid out yet with the bank yet to sign off. Can't imagine they would be keen to speed up the process. Can see everyone at Westpac and HSG coming down with the bird flu and having a doctors note to stay off work til Tuesday.

Tough spot as well, you can't imagine either side (Members and HSG) would have much coin to drag it through the courts either.

[Pico]

I can only speak of my experiences with Construction industry BG’s, who knows they could actually have all their assets tied up in some account, but then really what would be the issue with having it roll over each year. From my experience BG’s would basically be used when a large client would require a guarantee that a construction firm has the capacity to complete the work. The firm would then go to their lender for a guarantee, the lender knowing the types of assets, revenue, basically their capacity to complete the work and meet the required terms, would then choose whether to agree to take on the liability on behalf of the firm to the benefit of the third party. Usually this involves the construction firm paying establishment fees plus a % based off the requested BG value to the bank to get the BG approved.

The fact Westpac is laying claim to Tinkler’s last remaining property assets, makes me think they believe he will fail to meet his obligations and they are anticipating the members club calling in the guarantee.

[The Dunster]

We may not win things in Newcastle, hell we are borderline competitive these days in sport, but we know how to entertain off the pitch.

tiki-taka administration.

[De-Champ]

De-champ, Pico is right.
A bank guarantee is like an insurance policy.
HSG pay a fee to the bank that if in the event of them defaulting on their commitments the bank pays out the $10m then goes after HSG for compensation.
Once the bank guarantee expires (31/3) the bank is off the hook and will not pay out anything, nor will Tinkler be liable to the bank. There is not $10m of HSG money sitting in a bank account. Members are going after that guarantee now as they know after 31/3 they will be left with nowt.
I have used bank guarantees in the past mostly for rental bonds on commercial properties, trust me, this is how they work.

The bank guarantee has to be secured by either cash or property. By property is meant not just real estate but shares etc. So in effect the bank has no liability, as if HSG defaults the bank pays the $10m, but the bank then takes the security that was given, whether it be cash or property. BTW the bank will charge a fee for this as well, so either way the bank can't lose out.

[plague]

The bank guarantee has to be secured by either cash or property. By property is meant not just real estate but shares etc. So in effect the bank has no liability, as if HSG defaults the bank pays the $10m, but the bank then takes the security that was given, whether it be cash or property. BTW the bank will charge a fee for this as well, so either way the bank can't lose out.

Yeah thats what I said.