@diedpretty said:http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/koukash-verge-taking-over-newcastle-7764872
Here's hoping.
"Taking over a top Australian Rugby League club." :laughing:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@diedpretty said:http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/koukash-verge-taking-over-newcastle-7764872
Here's hoping.
@Sabre said:Neither the Tigers or the NRL would be stupid enough to remove Balmain from the joint venture.
I dare say doing that would mean a loss of over 50% of supporters.
@Sabre said:Brent Read reporting that Balmain are keen to speak to Koukash about selling their share in WT to him.
@Sabre said:Brent Read reporting on Twitter that Balmain are keen to speak to Koukash about selling their share in WT to him.
@gallagher said:@Sabre said:Brent Read reporting on Twitter that Balmain are keen to speak to Koukash about selling their share in WT to him.
Wests group get first go at it. It says it all about the merger that Balmain would rather go to the NRL then some Pom before giving control to Wests. If true that is.
@Sabre said:@gallagher said:@Sabre said:Brent Read reporting on Twitter that Balmain are keen to speak to Koukash about selling their share in WT to him.
Wests group get first go at it. It says it all about the merger that Balmain would rather go to the NRL then some Pom before giving control to Wests. If true that is.
Whilst I'm not doubting that you are right, it doesn't sound correct to me….
Surely they can sell their share to who ever they wish, they wouldn't legally be forced to sell to any particular buyer I would think.
@Sabre said:@gallagher said:@Sabre said:Brent Read reporting on Twitter that Balmain are keen to speak to Koukash about selling their share in WT to him.
Wests group get first go at it. It says it all about the merger that Balmain would rather go to the NRL then some Pom before giving control to Wests. If true that is.
Whilst I'm not doubting that you are right, it doesn't sound correct to me….
Surely they can sell their share to who ever they wish, they wouldn't legally be forced to sell to any particular buyer I would think.
@gallagher said:@Sabre said:@gallagher said:@Sabre said:Brent Read reporting on Twitter that Balmain are keen to speak to Koukash about selling their share in WT to him.
Wests group get first go at it. It says it all about the merger that Balmain would rather go to the NRL then some Pom before giving control to Wests. If true that is.
Whilst I'm not doubting that you are right, it doesn't sound correct to me….
Surely they can sell their share to who ever they wish, they wouldn't legally be forced to sell to any particular buyer I would think.
I'm only going on previous media reports, so i dont actually know for sure. but the reports are that it was in the original JV agreement. It would be pretty low to sell to a third party if your JV partner wanted to buy.
@tigertye said:@gallagher said:@Sabre said:@gallagher said:Wests group get first go at it. It says it all about the merger that Balmain would rather go to the NRL then some Pom before giving control to Wests. If true that is.
Whilst I'm not doubting that you are right, it doesn't sound correct to me….
Surely they can sell their share to who ever they wish, they wouldn't legally be forced to sell to any particular buyer I would think.
I'm only going on previous media reports, so i dont actually know for sure. but the reports are that it was in the original JV agreement. It would be pretty low to sell to a third party if your JV partner wanted to buy.
They may want a condition that the 'Tiger' remains. So Wests then can't change it back to the Magpies if they bought the Balmain shares. So basically the "Tigers" heritage/name can live on.
_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
@tigertye said:They may want a condition that the 'Tiger' remains. So Wests then can't change it back to the Magpies if they bought the Balmain shares. So basically the "Tigers" heritage/name can live on.
_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
@happy tiger said:@tigertye said:@gallagher said:@Sabre said:Whilst I'm not doubting that you are right, it doesn't sound correct to me….
Surely they can sell their share to who ever they wish, they wouldn't legally be forced to sell to any particular buyer I would think.
I'm only going on previous media reports, so i dont actually know for sure. but the reports are that it was in the original JV agreement. It would be pretty low to sell to a third party if your JV partner wanted to buy.
They may want a condition that the 'Tiger' remains. So Wests then can't change it back to the Magpies if they bought the Balmain shares. So basically the "Tigers" heritage/name can live on.
_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
SORRY FOR THE CAPS , BUT SOME PEOPLE DON'T GET IT
THE NRL OWNS THE WESTS TIGERS NAME
IT CAN'T BE CHANGED FOR ANY REASON BARRING RELOCATION WHICH WESTS WON"T WANT
IF ANYONE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS PLEASE PM ME
I JUST DON"T KNOW HOW HARD THIS IS TO UNDERSTAND :brick: