In my experience, Boards come and go and with different ideas each time.
The former chair of HBG, may have committed to the reforms - it doesn’t mean the new ones does. Could it be a power play? Julie Romero might be asking why are we (HBG) paying for this without control? The former board agreed but she doesn’t?
I find the appointment of Dennis Burgess telling (very old school thinking IMHO).
Would love to hear what Julie Romero has to say. She hasn’t denied anything and her silence is keeping the story in the media.
It was a very simple approach wasn’t it.
Facing a fan revolt to completely restructure the clubs governance. The HBG make a huge statement and sack themselves as well as any other trouble makers alongside them notably our then Chairman, knowing full well they still have a seat at the table in the HBG board.
The HBG board at the time agreed in full to apply all recommendations of the review.
Great job hey, bold statement, done swiftly and with not much opposition to the outcome.
Fans loved it, we won they say.
HBG meanwhile start thinking up ways to once again become relevant once the dust blows over.
meanwhile WT are in a position of no formal governance and the HBG have taken full control.
A restructure on HBG then bring about a loophole in that the agreement to apply the recommendations was made by the then directors and chairperson.
New board and directors have other plans and push to move in a different direction.
Do we need to call in Brydens lawyers to go over the terms of the review agreement? If there ever was anything put done in writing or on the record.
