WT Ownership, The Board & Senior Management - MEGA Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow just wow re Lee comments.
The guy just doesn't get why majority wanted him out.

Like seriously you just shut up and if you really supported the club like he has said so you get on and keep the club in a positive light.

The crap he talks about re player managers I wonder if he actually reassured them or said mate they are lost donā€™t move your players to the club.

Benji has been open about keeping club stuff in house and Lee 1st crack name drops him in a conversation.

Glad he will be clear of the club. Has shown his true colors. Such a selfish person.
 
crazycat said:
Lets not confuse unrelated stuff.

Ofcourse we should have sued re the cowboys result, we should have also screamed Foul and badgered the referees more. 100% the board should have been angry and the calls that go against us, damn right I expect something done. Legal action has some weight and sometimes you have to "try", when the law isn't tested you just don't know if this will work.

Legal action also has an intimidation factor. Suddenly the ref is looking at 50k for robbing our team of points. might not work, but it may just make them think twice.


That said, I hope Lee H does not sue. Legal action is a move that has two loosers. One that looses a little and one that looses a lot. Heck Lee if you are going to sue, sue the Daily Telegraph for posting a stack of nonsense about our team. That's a small reason why you are not in the job. (bigger reason, you did not deliver).
Click to expand...
FMD!!

You have absolutely no idea about legal liabilities!!

$50K for a referee error (who would be indemnified by the NRL regardless)!!

AND Lee also has zero grounds to sue Wests Tigers!!!

Stop posting childish rubbish!

1702381066908.png
 
weststigers said:
You seem to be highly educated on the topic.

Can I ask, what would have happened if, say, Tony Andreacchio or Dennis Burgess or any other board member refused to step down?
Click to expand...
I assume they could have been voted off by the other Board members. I haven't seen their Charter but I would assume a certain number of votes will remove a Director.

HBG held a 4-person voting block on the 7-person WT Board:
Tony Andreacchio
Julie Romero
Denny Burgess
Rick Wayde

It was previously a 5-person block when Simon Cook was on the Board and Rick Wayde was officially the Wests Magpies appointee. Rick Wayde managed to be Magpies rep because HBG also hold (still) a voting block at the Magpies level - including how they removed Shannon Cavanagh.

I am not clear if John Dorahy became the new Wests Magpies rep when Simon Cook stepped down; either way HBG can control the WT Board as a block.

The independent members were Lee H and Danny Stapleton, which was obviously somewhat of a farce because Lee was also the major sponsor and Danny is Balmain down to his bones.

So if any of the HBG members refused to step down, the other members should have been able to vote to remove them. The controversy/trouble would have been that HBG Directors would have to vote against their own people, and Lee H could have teamed up with sufficient disenfranchised HBG Directors to block the move. I am going to assume that HBG unanimously agreed to vote to remove themselves and therefore any other votes were moot.

Also to note now, Danny Stapleton has been reappointed as a new Director, officially now as Balmain rep rather than independent, and HBG's new appointee is Dave Gilbert who replaced Mike Bailey when he died. Magpies haven't appointed their rep yet - it remains to be seen whether HBG will put another of their own people on via their Magpies control, or maintain face and appoint an entirely new person.
 
rozelle_rudy said:
I don't think Nick Polites thinks his role is to be a hands-off figurehead style chairman. He's not the only one.
Click to expand...
Ummmm - irrelevant!!

Politis is effectively the owner/financial benefactor of the club (without being a sponsor) - and the Board serves at his discretion....

IT IS NOT A JOB DESCRIPTION - Lee was always a wannabe - and we have Nofa because he couldn't stay in his lane!!
 
Last edited:
jirskyr said:
I assume they could have been voted off by the other Board members. I haven't seen their Charter but I would assume a certain number of votes will remove a Director.

HBG held a 4-person voting block on the 7-person WT Board:
Tony Andreacchio
Julie Romero
Denny Burgess
Rick Wayde

It was previously a 5-person block when Simon Cook was on the Board and Rick Wayde was officially the Wests Magpies appointee. Rick Wayde managed to be Magpies rep because HBG also hold (still) a voting block at the Magpies level - including how they removed Shannon Cavanagh.

I am not clear if John Dorahy became the new Wests Magpies rep when Simon Cook stepped down; either way HBG can control the WT Board as a block.

The independent members were Lee H and Danny Stapleton, which was obviously somewhat of a farce because Lee was also the major sponsor and Danny is Balmain down to his bones.

So if any of the HBG members refused to step down, the other members should have been able to vote to remove them. The controversy/trouble would have been that HBG Directors would have to vote against their own people, and Lee H could have teamed up with sufficient disenfranchised HBG Directors to block the move. I am going to assume that HBG unanimously agreed to vote to remove themselves and therefore any other votes were moot.

Also to note now, Danny Stapleton has been reappointed as a new Director, officially now as Balmain rep rather than independent, and HBG's new appointee is Dave Gilbert who replaced Mike Bailey when he died. Magpies haven't appointed their rep yet - it remains to be seen whether HBG will put another of their own people on via their Magpies control, or maintain face and appoint an entirely new person.
Click to expand...
We just need Richo to dictate for a while. Get things that must be done, done.
 
jirskyr said:
I assume they could have been voted off by the other Board members. I haven't seen their Charter but I would assume a certain number of votes will remove a Director.

HBG held a 4-person voting block on the 7-person WT Board:
Tony Andreacchio
Julie Romero
Denny Burgess
Rick Wayde

It was previously a 5-person block when Simon Cook was on the Board and Rick Wayde was officially the Wests Magpies appointee. Rick Wayde managed to be Magpies rep because HBG also hold (still) a voting block at the Magpies level - including how they removed Shannon Cavanagh.

I am not clear if John Dorahy became the new Wests Magpies rep when Simon Cook stepped down; either way HBG can control the WT Board as a block.

The independent members were Lee H and Danny Stapleton, which was obviously somewhat of a farce because Lee was also the major sponsor and Danny is Balmain down to his bones.

So if any of the HBG members refused to step down, the other members should have been able to vote to remove them. The controversy/trouble would have been that HBG Directors would have to vote against their own people, and Lee H could have teamed up with sufficient disenfranchised HBG Directors to block the move. I am going to assume that HBG unanimously agreed to vote to remove themselves and therefore any other votes were moot.

Also to note now, Danny Stapleton has been reappointed as a new Director, officially now as Balmain rep rather than independent, and HBG's new appointee is Dave Gilbert who replaced Mike Bailey when he died. Magpies haven't appointed their rep yet - it remains to be seen whether HBG will put another of their own people on via their Magpies control, or maintain face and appoint an entirely new person.
Click to expand...
The Wests Tigers board didnt vote themselves off, the owners of the WT, HBG voted the entire board off. The WT board have no say in in, they are apointed at the pleasure of the HBG board.
 
jirskyr said:
Talking about the Board here - how would they have been punted? It was an independent review with non-binding recommendations.

Holman Barnes could do what they please, including ignoring the recommendations... in fact, including smothering the recommendations which were not required to be made public. Private review for a privately-run organisation.

So to that extent, Holman Barnes absolutely had the power to appoint themselves. They've been doing it ever since they existed.
Click to expand...
The WT Board were advised of the review recommendations by the HBG Board - and all but Lee stood down gracefully!

The findings on Pascoe and Hagipantellis (and behaviour of Lee since) were such that they needed to be treated like mushrooms until the 23rd hour....

How is that hard to grasp?
 
WesternSuburbsBoy said:
The way Lee is going out shows he never really cared about the club & only cared about his self interests & boosting his ego. By the time the new year rolls around this shitstain will hopefully be a distant memory !!!
Click to expand...
No reflection on you WSB - but a massive DERP to all the appalling judges of character who could'nt see this spiv as the Wish version of "Saul Goodman"...

1702382467660.png
 
Iron Fist said:
Wests Magpies Pty Ltd own 90% of Wests Tigers Rugby League Pty Ltd. BTRLFC own 10%.

Holman Barnes are majority owners of Wests Tigers Rugby League Pty Ltd, via their 66% stake in Wests Magpies Pty Ltd. WSDRLFC own 33% of Wests Magpies Pty Ltd.

So will this change now?
Click to expand...
No
 
  • Like
Reactions: BZN
Mistymuzzle said:
The Wests Tigers board didnt vote themselves off, the owners of the WT, HBG voted the entire board off. The WT board have no say in in, they are apointed at the pleasure of the HBG board.
Click to expand...
Well for starters, if HBG Directors on the WT Board vote to do anything, as a block, then yes nobody else on the WT Board can do anything else about it unless the Charter demands some form of substantial majority (above 4/7 votes).

Re "WT Board appointment exclusively at the pleasure of the HBG Board", are you sure this is right? HBG don't even own 100% of Wests Tigers.

Wests Tigers - the NRL Franchise, is 90% owned by Wests Magpies Ptd Ltd and 10% by Balmain Tigers. The 10% is good-will gesture from HBG when they took over Balmain's debts and merged the two Leagues Clubs.

Wests Magpies Pty Ltd is then 66% owned by HBG and 33% owned by Western Suburbs DRLFC. Therefore HBG officially owns 66% of 90% = 60% of Wests Tigers.

WSDRLFC has a 7-person Board of which HBG control 4 seats, the other 3 being voted by Wests Magpies Football Club members. That means HBG control WSDRLFC and on technicality "own" 4/7% of the 33% stake in Wests Tigers, so another 19%.

This means HBG officially own 60% of Wests Tigers and unofficially 79% if you include their stake via Wests Magpies. But they hold all voting control at the Magpies and Wests Tigers level.

But how does HBG assume to summarily appoint and dismiss all Board members including independents and Balmain's representative? They don't own 100% of Wests Tigers. The Board is not 100% HBG appointees?
 
jirskyr said:
Well for starters, if HBG Directors on the WT Board vote to do anything, as a block, then yes nobody else on the WT Board can do anything else about it unless the Charter demands some form of substantial majority (above 4/7 votes).

Re "WT Board appointment exclusively at the pleasure of the HBG Board", are you sure this is right? HBG don't even own 100% of Wests Tigers.

Wests Tigers - the NRL Franchise, is 90% owned by Wests Magpies Ptd Ltd and 10% by Balmain Tigers. The 10% is good-will gesture from HBG when they took over Balmain's debts and merged the two Leagues Clubs.

Wests Magpies Pty Ltd is then 66% owned by HBG and 33% owned by Western Suburbs DRLFC. Therefore HBG officially owns 66% of 90% = 60% of Wests Tigers.

WSDRLFC has a 7-person Board of which HBG control 4 seats, the other 3 being voted by Wests Magpies Football Club members. That means HBG control WSDRLFC and on technicality "own" 4/7% of the 33% stake in Wests Tigers, so another 19%.

This means HBG officially own 60% of Wests Tigers and unofficially 79% if you include their stake via Wests Magpies. But they hold all voting control at the Magpies and Wests Tigers level.

But how does HBG assume to summarily appoint and dismiss all Board members including independents and Balmain's representative? They don't own 100% of Wests Tigers. The Board is not 100% HBG appointees?
Click to expand...

Mate you answered your own question. HBG own the majority of WT, who is going to oppose them?
The WT board was sacked by the HBG group board after a HBG board meeting. Not sure what else to tell you. The WT board didnt sack themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BZN
Mistymuzzle said:
I notice you didnt refute any of the points I made.
Click to expand...
Well this is what Cavanagh said about them

ā€œThey [Pascoe and Hagipantelis] are really lacking in self-awareness if they canā€™t acknowledge they are a big part of the issues at the club,ā€ Cavanagh said. ā€œI think they donā€™t listen and they canā€™t handle criticism at all. There is an arrogance that exists at the club and I donā€™t know why they would feel like that given the way the Wests Tigers have performed.ā€


Nothing about the governance of the governance of Holman Group as you claimed. I let it slide as I dont really want to argue with anyone on this great day for the club.
 
Mistymuzzle said:
Mate you answered your own question. HBG own the majority of WT, who is going to oppose them?
The WT board was sacked by the HBG group board after a HBG board meeting. Not sure what else to tell you. The WT board didnt sack themselves.
Click to expand...
well... yeah, they did. Burgess, Andreacchio, Wayde and Romero all resigned from their posts. is that not the WT board sacking themselves?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,303 (members: 11, guests: 1,292)
Back
Top