SOME might regard it as the equivalent of allowing a fox to take up permanent residency in the chook pen.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
But the more I ponder it, the more I am of the opinion the NRL’s decision to invite Phil Gardner to sit on the new Newcastle Knights board is based on common sense.
Gardner, as most Novocastrians would be aware, is chief executive of the highly successful Wests Group.
And Wests is widely accepted as the most logical future owner of the Knights, if and when the governing body decides the time is right to put Newcastle’s NRL franchise out to tender.
In other words, at some point in the not-too-distant future Gardner will be likely to make a recommendation to the Wests board, and the club’s 100,000-plus members, on whether or not buying the Knights is a wise idea.
Since the NRL assumed interim control of the Knights upon ousting former owner Nathan Tinkler in June, the powers that be have made it obvious that Wests would be their preferred partner.
But Gardner is seemingly content to bide his time and let the dust settle.
There are two apparent reasons for his caution.
Firstly, during Tinkler’s dysfunctional tenure, the Knights bled cash at an unsustainable rate, and Wests is entitled to wait for evidence that the situation has stabilised.
Only fools rush in.
Secondly, Gardner is unlikely to have forgotten the developments of 2006 when, after Wests generously agreed to underwrite the Knights for $1million a year, both parties ended up embroiled in a much-publicised dispute over who was responsible for paying what. The arrangement turned so sour that it was eventually abandoned. Wests continued to sponsor the Knights, by providing training facilities and eventually offices at their licensed premises in Mayfield, but there would be no more blank cheques.
Before Wests seriously contemplate taking the quantum leap from sponsors to owners, what they will want more than anything is complete transparency. And with Gardner one of seven directors on the Knights board, he is in the perfect position to monitor their incomings and outgoings and scrutinise the bottom line.
The other advantage he will have is the chance to assess his six fellow directors at close quarters. One of the stipulations when the NRL eventually sells the Knights is that the new owner will receive only two seats on the board, raising the possibility of being outvoted.
The NRL has indicated that, initially at least, this will be non-negotiable.
But if Gardner had any concerns about that particular prerequisite, at least now he has an opportunity to gain a first-hand insight into the people responsible for running the Knights.
In effect, he can perform due diligence on the Knights at his leisure and then provide Wests with an informed opinion about whether owning the city’s rugby league flagship would be a sound investment.
It seems a classic case of try before you buy.
In the meantime, the Knights will benefit from Gardner’s wealth of expertise. As well as overseeing the omnipotent Wests Group, he serves on an array of other high-powered boards.
This will be the first time, however, that he has been a director of the Knights, which would seem a clear indication that he likes what he sees and is keen for a closer look.
