Chammas Article

[BZN]

Who said that. I certainly didn’t, WT fans are made up from different groups two of which are old Balmain fans and old Wests fans. In those two groups are a small minority who wish things were as they once were in relation to Wests or Balmain.
These minorities occasionally act up on the forum, I have no desire to return to pre 2000 arrangements as I remember how bad things were for Wests.
But I will defend Wests or HBG from unreasonable or unwarranted criticism.

Coivtny...I appreciate your balanced tone and your defence of Wests Magpies when needed.
I just want to clarify something you said about "a small minority who wish things were as they once were".
I also have no desire to return to pre 2000 arrangements.
I too lived through that era and know how tough it was for the Magpies.

So I hope you weren't referring to me in that comment, because my posts have consistently focused on representation, not regression.

What I am saying, and have said in every post, is that the current jersey doesn't reflect a fair balance.
The Magpies have been diluted to a small patch on the collar and shoulder, while the Tiger dominates the colours of our jersey and branding narrative.
Thats not equal representation...it's symbolic marginalisation.

This isn't about turning the clock back. It's about ensuring that both sides of the JV are visible, valued and celebrated.

Because right now, the story told by our branding feels overwhelmingly one sided.

 

[BZN]

I’m just being honest my son.

There’s been a lot of on line bullying on this forum recently.

Thanks for your honesty TSP, and once again much appreciated 👍.

 

[cochise]

Coivtny...I appreciate your balanced tone and your defence of Wests Magpies when needed.
I just want to clarify something you said about "a small minority who wish things were as they once were".
I also have no desire to return to pre 2000 arrangements.
I too lived through that era and know how tough it was for the Magpies.

So I hope you weren't referring to me in that comment, because my posts have consistently focused on representation, not regression.

What I am saying, and have said in every post, is that the current jersey doesn't reflect a fair balance.
The Magpies have been diluted to a small patch on the collar and shoulder, while the Tiger dominates the colours of our jersey and branding narrative.
Thats not equal representation...it's symbolic marginalisation.

This isn't about turning the clock back. It's about ensuring that both sides of the JV are visible, valued and celebrated.

Because right now, the story told by our branding feels overwhelmingly one sided.

The main jersey is predominantly black with orange and white. How is that a under representation of the Wests side of the club? There are literally more Magpies on the jersey than Tigers for a club called the Wests Tigers.

This is why you do more harm than good to the Magpies brand, you just make rubbish up.

This post isn't designed to bag the Magpies or claim they are over represented. It is to highlight the totally disconnect from the reality of the situation.

 

[TSP]

 

[TSP]

 

[TSP]

 

[TSP]

 

[TSP]

 

[weststigers]

Wests Magpies?????

You do realise Holman Barnes is just the new name for Western Suburbs Leagues Club Limited right? Here is an excerpt directly from their website.

"Established in October 1955 to support the Western Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club, Western Suburbs Leagues Club Limited (now trading as Holman Barnes Group)." ​

66.66% HBG (Wests Leagues Club) and 33.33% Wests Magpies RLFC = 100% Wests Magpies Pty Ltd

Wests Magpies Pty Ltd (90/10 owener of Wests Tigers) is simply the vehicle used to create the joint venture between Wests and Balmain, but it is owned by the 2 above entities. HBG (West Leagues Club) also appoint 4/7 directors of Wests Magpies RLFC. I think it's fair to say the one with all the power is HBG (Wests Leagues Club) and they are Western Suburbs affiliated. So yes, if they own 90% of the damn club, they should accept 90% of the blame for the total mess that's been created. It's not like we can become a member and vote them out can we?

It's all here https://www.westsmagpies.com.au/the-club/teams-boards-ownership/

 

[BZN]

I've seen the comments, some indirect, some not so subtle.
I've been called a "richard" which we all know is shorthand for something else.
No name used of course, just enough for me to "assume".

I've also seen someone say... I spend half my time on here bagging him.
Again, no name used, just enough for me to "assume".

And I'm the one labelled deluded, manipulative and playing the victim.

Let me be clear'
I've never resorted to name calling.
I've never asked for a return to 2000.
I've consistently advocated for balance, fairness and representation.
So, if some people think this is too much to ask to bring unity, then I think there is a strong case of branding bias.

If that's delusion, then I'll wear it proudly.

And when some posters resort to cheap shots instead of educating, Imo it says more about their insecurity than my intent.

I'm not here to bag anyone.

 

[coivtny]

Coivtny...I appreciate your balanced tone and your defence of Wests Magpies when needed.
I just want to clarify something you said about "a small minority who wish things were as they once were".
I also have no desire to return to pre 2000 arrangements.
I too lived through that era and know how tough it was for the Magpies.

So I hope you weren't referring to me in that comment, because my posts have consistently focused on representation, not regression.

What I am saying, and have said in every post, is that the current jersey doesn't reflect a fair balance.
The Magpies have been diluted to a small patch on the collar and shoulder, while the Tiger dominates the colours of our jersey and branding narrative.
Thats not equal representation...it's symbolic marginalisation.

This isn't about turning the clock back. It's about ensuring that both sides of the JV are visible, valued and celebrated.

Because right now, the story told by our branding feels overwhelmingly one sided.

Hey BZN, my post wasn't aimed at you but it was directed towards anyone on either side of the argument who want to see a return to pre-2000 times. Speaking as an old Maggies supporter, we were terrible in the 90s particularly and the joint venture was our chance for salvation.
I don't, however, share your concerns about representation. As I see it Wests and Balmain are very evenly represented in the club name, the colours and the jersey. I have no issue with representation at all,

 

[coivtny]

You do realise Holman Barnes is just the new name for Western Suburbs Leagues Club Limited right? Here is an excerpt directly from their website.

"Established in October 1955 to support the Western Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club, Western Suburbs Leagues Club Limited (now trading as Holman Barnes Group)." ​

66.66% HBG (Wests Leagues Club) and 33.33% Wests Magpies RLFC = 100% Wests Magpies Pty Ltd

Wests Magpies Pty Ltd (90/10 owener of Wests Tigers) is simply the vehicle used to create the joint venture between Wests and Balmain, but it is owned by the 2 above entities. HBG (West Leagues Club) also appoint 4/7 directors of Wests Magpies RLFC. I think it's fair to say the one with all the power is HBG (Wests Leagues Club) and they are Western Suburbs affiliated. So yes, if they own 90% of the damn club, they should accept 90% of the blame for the total mess that's been created. It's not like we can become a member and vote them out can we?

It's all here https://www.westsmagpies.com.au/the-club/teams-boards-ownership/

HBG is not the Wests Magpies football club and vice versa. If you have issues with HBG, so do I. If you have issues with Wests Magpies football club, your angst is misdirected.

 

[Big Red]

I've seen the comments, some indirect, some not so subtle.
I've been called a "richard" which we all know is shorthand for something else.
No name used of course, just enough for me to "assume".

I've also seen someone say... I spend half my time on here bagging him.
Again, no name used, just enough for me to "assume".

And I'm the one labelled deluded, manipulative and playing the victim.

Let me be clear'
I've never resorted to name calling.
I've never asked for a return to 2000.
I've consistently advocated for balance, fairness and representation.
So, if some people think this is too much to ask to bring unity, then I think there is a strong case of branding bias.

If that's delusion, then I'll wear it proudly.

And when some posters resort to cheap shots instead of educating, Imo it says more about their insecurity than my intent.

I'm not here to bag anyone.

BZN, I’ve tried understanding your perspective and even asked you to share your vision for the club. I was genuinely interested in what you would accept as fair representation. However, your response was a flippant “Dunno, what do you think”. Instead of providing constructive input you’ve dug trenches and adopted a siege mentality, repeating the same lines regardless of how people respond to you. That’s not reflective of the valour you seem to seek. So I will ask again, what is your vision for the club, what exactly would you see as fair representation?