Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Post by **Beaussie** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:47 am

Rescue funds provided by Nathan Tinkler seem to have disappeared. Is this club still viable without Tinkler who was seen as their white knight?

The funds were “a good start” to support the club but new revenue sources would have to be found swiftly to make the club viable into the future. The true extent of arrears at Hunter Sports Club would not be know until ownership was handed over.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6861690418

Raiderdave · Post by **Raiderdave** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:21 am

Beaussie wrote:
Rescue funds provided by Nathan Tinkler seem to have disappeared. Is this club still viable without Tinkler who was seen as their white knight?

The funds were “a good start” to support the club but new revenue sources would have to be found swiftly to make the club viable into the future. The true extent of arrears at Hunter Sports Club would not be know until ownership was handed over.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6861690418

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>
again
a fumbler posting selective information that is neither true
or accurate
just more News Ltd muck racking

as we all know
when Nathan Tinkler bought the Knights several years ago now
the Knights board as part of the deal sought a very big guarantee & got a then very wealthy Tinkler to deposit 20 million dollars into an account that he can't touch .. nor can the Knights
however
should Tinkler go belly up
the Knights get the 20 million & all the interest accrued

meaning the Knights will be fine for many years after Mr Tinkler is gone which it looks like he will be soon
another Bearsy thread that wasn't worth reading ... what a waste of 45 seconds

he is indeed the king of shit pointless threads

Swans4ever · Post by **Swans4ever** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:29 am

Yeah another failed attempt at private ownership!

Raiderdave · Post by **Raiderdave** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:40 am

Swans4ever wrote:
Yeah another failed attempt at private ownership!

theres always a risk with private ownership
hence the Knights being smart & insisting on a safety net should Tinkler's business fail & he is no longer able to fund their team

the Newcastle Jets are in big strife
the Newcastle Knights .............. are not !!

another fucking stupid pointless contribution from Bearsy

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Swans4ever · Post by **Swans4ever** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:50 am

Raiderdave wrote:
Swans4ever wrote:
Yeah another failed attempt at private ownership!

theres always a risk with private ownership
hence the Knights being smart & insisting on a safety net should Tinkler's business fail & he is no longer able to fund their team

the Newcastle Jets are in big strife
the Newcastle Knights .............. are not !!

another fucking stupid pointless contribution from Bearsy :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Well that's not they were saying on RL 360!

Raiderdave · Post by **Raiderdave** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:25 pm

Swans4ever wrote:
Raiderdave wrote:
Swans4ever wrote:
Yeah another failed attempt at private ownership!

theres always a risk with private ownership
hence the Knights being smart & insisting on a safety net should Tinkler's business fail & he is no longer able to fund their team

the Newcastle Jets are in big strife
the Newcastle Knights .............. are not !!

another fucking stupid pointless contribution from Bearsy :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>
Well that's not they were saying on RL 360!

like they'd know fuckwit

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Swans4ever · Post by **Swans4ever** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:33 pm

Raiderdave wrote:
Swans4ever wrote:
Raiderdave wrote:
Swans4ever wrote:
Yeah another failed attempt at private ownership!

theres always a risk with private ownership
hence the Knights being smart & insisting on a safety net should Tinkler's business fail & he is no longer able to fund their team

the Newcastle Jets are in big strife
the Newcastle Knights .............. are not !!

another fucking stupid pointless contribution from Bearsy :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>
Well that's not they were saying on RL 360!
like they'd know fuckwit :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Yeah a program about RL with RL commentators don't know? Hahaha keep being in denial!

Swans4ever · Post by **Swans4ever** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:35 pm

AFL with 3 rounds still behind still 65k more than NRL round 1 - oh the despair of RD!

Raiderdave · Post by **Raiderdave** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:22 pm

Swans4ever wrote:
AFL with 3 rounds still behind still 65k more than NRL round 1 - oh the despair of RD!

& they'll still be 100,000 behind their opening round last year !!

& VFL fans turning off their TV's in their thousands too
record low ratings

whats happened fumblers ??

>
its all falling apart !!

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

pointing their finger at us
lowest opening round crowds in 10 years they sceamed groping their tiny willies

:_<> :_<> :_<>

10 years eh ?

then they have their worst

in 20 years !!

& I'm the one in despair

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

fumblers
have you ever seen a bigger pack of dickheads

Cracker · Post by **Cracker** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:23 pm

It is certainly a sad indictment on private ownership, whether the Knights survive or not. The AFL banned it a long time again. The NRL should do the same.

cos789 · Post by **cos789** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:41 pm

Cracker wrote:
It is certainly a sad indictment on private ownership, whether the Knights survive or not. The AFL banned it a long time again. The NRL should do the same.

Moreover it's a sad indictment of rl in the regionals.

You know they play AF in Newcastle just like they play AF in NZ.

ParraEelsNRL · Post by **ParraEelsNRL** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:46 pm

Cracker · Post by **Cracker** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:41 pm

cos789 wrote:
Cracker wrote:
It is certainly a sad indictment on private ownership, whether the Knights survive or not. The AFL banned it a long time again. The NRL should do the same.
Moreover it's a sad indictment of rl in the regionals.

You know they play AF in Newcastle

I rather think that Newcastle has a stronger rugby league presence than Aussie Rules, so that argument is not relevant.

Swans4ever · Post by **Swans4ever** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:41 pm

cos789 wrote:
Cracker wrote:
It is certainly a sad indictment on private ownership, whether the Knights survive or not. The AFL banned it a long time again. The NRL should do the same.
Moreover it's a sad indictment of rl in the regionals.

You know they play AF in Newcastle just like they play AF in NZ.

What are you saying they don't play AF in NZ or Newcastle????

adamj1300 · Post by **adamj1300** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:28 am

Cracker wrote:
It is certainly a sad indictment on private ownership, whether the Knights survive or not. The AFL banned it a long time again. The NRL should do the same.

there are a few teams in the AFL still privately owned. im sure the SA clubs are owned by the SA football league and the WA clubs, fremantle & west coast eagles owned by the WA football league. but it is funny saying that in private ownership. the West Coast Eagles are by far the richest football club in the country. not even owning a poker machine or a gaming venue. they make the Collingwoods & Essendons & Hawthorns look poor. they a have a 39odd million sitting in the bank and a 7 year wait on their membership

and the NRL clubs

worse less pieces of shit, they own more poke machines than members!

Talking Footy

Talking Footy

Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain

Re: Newcastle Knights future uncertain