I love that we're a community club and not some rich bloke's folly.
I think I agree. I'm aware how wishy-washy that sounds.
Situations like that of Newy and Tinkler makes everyone touchy about private ownership. Aspects of Souths and PHaC/Crowe too but it'd be difficult to argue Souths aren't better off.
So I think it depends on which rich bloke's folly it is. Lets be fair dinkum being a 'community club' hasn't seen us excel and just how much notice is taken of the 'community' (is this the locals, the broader fan community?) anyhow.
I know nothing of Kukash or his motives, aspirations whatever. Would we feel different if he were a confessed Sharkies tragic - a member of this 'community'? I think so. Although Tinks was a Knight through and through too aparently. I guess God forbid a bloke like <insert dunce forumer here> struck gold and took over, but if <insert balanced individual who we know/trust> took the reigns it might be different.
Private ownership is going to be the preferred model moving forwards. I've little doubt about this simply judging from most other major sporting competitions. At the moment with most Clubs not turning a profit it takes more a heart over head decision to buy in to a footy Club. But supposing Dave Smith and his lot take the game in the direction they plan, and drag the Clubs along kicking and screaming into profit making businesses, then we'll see more people looking to invest. These will be businessmen but looking to turn a profit, which you could argue is better than a staunch fan doing it for love.
Apologies if that reads like a brainfart. Its a tricky one and something the ARLC will have to deal with more and more. I guess its about letting the right people in for the right reasons, and the NRL having the money to sustain Clubs in trouble instead of having them sell out to the highest (only) bidder out of desperation.
Like I've said previous though I doubt we're an attractive investment until the cloud of litigation from the 2011 PED saga goes away anyway.
I wonder what kind of interest rate we are being charged and how that compares to a bank loan.
Usually if you take out a loan with a backyard organisation you pay through the teeth for it.
I thought I remember hearing or reading it was a discounted rate to that of a bank which is why we went down that path? Could be wrong.
You'd like to think there was a sound financial basis behind transferring from a bank to an individual lender. But with any good upside to a deal for the borrowing party there is usually an equally good upside for the lending party should the borrower fail on their end. These upsides and downsides should be transparent to members.
