The Goliaths vs The Davids

There has been much talk this week about Nathan Tinkler's withdrawal of his offer of $100 million to the Newcastle Knights over ten years. As the father of a Knights tragic and as a League fan I have a keen interest in the deal, but at the same time I am a little bit sceptical on Nathan Tinkler's sell to the public on the issue.

I know that there will be a lot of knights supporters who are furious at the Knights board for not accepting the deal and perhaps they are all right. But didn't the deal look a little bit too easy from the outside?

The questions that I had that needed to be answered were:

• What were the conditions on the deal? and
• What role would Nathan Tinkler play once his money was secured in the club?

If the deal were so black and white when Nathan offered his money to the Newcastle Knights, then why wasn't it snapped up straight away? There has obviously been a breakdown at the negotiation table and Nathan has walked away with his lip dragging on the ground.

In his interview with the Daily Telegraph he stated that he would have significant influence in bringing Wayne Bennett to the club, yet he can't close the initial deal on giving away $100 million dollars? He put this down to the Knights Chairman Robbie Tew and CEO Steve Burraston roadblocking the deal, yet he admits that he never included them in any of the Knights plans for the future. It makes sense then that he hasn't conceived that the very people that work in the club day in and day out may want to still have some influence on how the club is run. I really couldn't blame them for being annoyed.

So it comes back to my original two questions. What didn't the board like about the conditions on Nathan's money? and remember that although boards can slow progress they are put there to service the interests of the members of the club. This means taking opportunities, but it also means that no one person can take total control of the club.

Footy aside isn't everyone sick and tired with big businesses taking over smaller businesses and no one having any say? So how is this any different?

In regards to Nathans role in the club, did he not show everyone what he was about with the whole Kade Snowden phone call fiasco? Nathan first denied that he spoke to Snowden then a few days later admitted that he did, but brushed it off saying "I don't need permission to use a telephone". If I were a Knights supporter I would be worried that someone who hasn't as yet secured an investment in the club is already trying to influence player deals and is talking about hiring coaches. Is that his job?

I believe that Nathans heart is in the right place and he does have a genuine love and interest in the club. However without sounding like I'm reading the script from the castle. Footy clubs are made up of people who love their team, their players and all believe they have a vested interest in its success. Nathan may have made a lot of money by barging his way through negotiations on mining deals, but when it comes to footy clubs, maybe he needs to take a leaf out of Rusty's book and realise he needs to include the knights community of followers before he takes over their club.

I think for too many people he has come in too fast and too forceful.

Tell us what you think is Nathan Tinkler a big bully or are the Knights a lost cause without him?