Breaking news: HBG takeover

Here's what google gemini managed to summarise for us for potential breaches. Keep in mind, this is just from publicly available information so will be limited.

Based on recent events involving the Holman Barnes Group (HBG)—including the mass sacking of the Wests Tigers board, the suspension of directors, and the internal handling of a "touching" incident—the members and the board have potentially breached several specific pieces of NSW legislation and industry codes.

1. Primary Legislative Breaches​

The most serious potential breaches relate to the Registered Clubs Act 1976 and the Liquor Act 2007, which govern the operation and integrity of clubs in NSW.

A. Registered Clubs Act 1976 (NSW)​

  • Section 30 (Rules of Registered Clubs): This section mandates that a club's rules must align with proper governance standards. The "shambolic" governance described by the Inner West Mayor and the mass suspension of directors could be seen as a failure to maintain rules that ensure the orderly conduct of the club.
  • Section 10(1)(i) (Undue Benefits): This prohibits members or directors from receiving benefits not offered equally to all members.
    • Potential Breach: If certain directors (e.g., in the "touching" scandal) were protected from disciplinary action by their allies on the board, they effectively received a "benefit" (immunity/protection) not available to ordinary members, which is a serious breach of the Act.

B. Liquor Act 2007 (NSW)​

  • Section 68 (Fit and Proper Person Test): To hold a liquor licence or be a secretary/manager of a registered club, individuals must be "fit and proper."
    • Potential Breach: The alleged "touching" incident involving a director ("tapping" a woman with a voting paddle and making inappropriate comments) directly challenges this test. If the board knowingly retained a director who engaged in such conduct without appropriate action, the club itself risks being deemed non-compliant with its fit and proper person obligations.

C. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)​

  • Whistleblower Protections: The HBG disciplinary committee statement explicitly mentioned complaints made via "whistleblower channels."
    • Potential Breach: If the whistleblower who reported the "touching" incident or governance failures was ignored, identified, or retaliated against (or if the complaints were suppressed by a faction of the board), this would breach strict federal whistleblower laws.
  • Directors' Duties: Directors have a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company (the club). "Protecting" a colleague from misconduct allegations for political reasons is a breach of this duty.

2. Breaches of Codes of Practice​

Beyond the "hard" law, HBG members likely breached mandatory and voluntary industry codes that set the standard for ethical conduct.

A. Registered Clubs Accountability Code (Statutory)​

  • Status: Mandatory (Schedule 2 of the Registered Clubs Regulation 2015/2025).
  • Disclosure of Interests: Directors must disclose any material personal interest in a matter being considered by the board.
  • Potential Breach: In the context of the "boardroom coup" and infighting, if directors voted on matters where they had a personal conflict (e.g., voting to suspend a rival to save their own position), they breached this statutory code.

B. ClubsNSW Code of Practice​

  • Status: Condition of Membership (Enforced by ClubsNSW).
  • Respectful Workplace: The Code mandates that clubs provide a workplace free from harassment and bullying.
    • Potential Breach: The "touching" incident is a clear violation. Furthermore, the alleged "protection" of the accused director by others creates a culture that tolerates harassment, further breaching the code.
  • Responsible Governance: The Code requires boards to act with transparency and integrity. The "chaos," "instability," and mass sackings cited by public officials suggest a failure to meet these governance standards.

Summary of Potential Breaches​

Incident/IssuePotential BreachRelevant Authority
"Touching" ScandalFit & Proper Person TestLiquor Act 2007 (s68)
Harassment/Workplace ConductClubsNSW Code of Practice
Protecting Accused DirectorUndue Benefit to MemberRegistered Clubs Act 1976 (s10)
Fiduciary DutiesCorporations Act 2001
Board Infighting & CoupsGovernance RulesRegistered Clubs Act 1976 (s30)
Conflict of InterestRegistered Clubs Accountability Code
Ignoring ComplaintsWhistleblower ProtectionsCorporations Act 2001
 
diedpretty said:
I asked BAGN05 who reported it - he has been having a go about everyone just throwing stuff out there so i wanted him to tell me who actually reported that they weren't attending meetings - no doubt he can't tell me because he was just doing what he accused others of doing.
Click to expand...
😱 You've uncovered what could be a rascal ring, or a ring of rascals even.
 
M
weststigers said:
There you have it. In 2030 the heritage deed expires allowing the owners to make a name change.

Although the NRL would be against it, I'd like to know the details around what veto, if any, the NRL could apply in this situation. The NRL provides the licence, however, it is provided to Wests Tigers Pty Ltd. Does it come with naming conditions? Lots of detail that needs filling in. If licensing obligations don't include naming, I'm not sure what can stop them...it's been reported Dennis has crowed about bringing the Magpies back and perhaps this is why he was so confident.

Manly set a precedent with the Northern Eagles, although slightly different circumstances.

The true agenda will come out in the end.
Click to expand...

Nothing would surprise me …

2030 is a long way away though …. What do they expect to happen in the meantime?
 
pawsandclaws1 said:
HBG are the owners, so they are entitled to make decisions. Are the conditions imposed by the NRL in 2013 - independent directors and KPIs still enforce. If so, will the NRL seek the appointment of new independent directors pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

The decisions they make should also be in the best interests of the football club and the NRL… Im sure this is a contractual obligation and I’m struggling to see how this is the case with this latest saga
 
1000017942.jpg

Wests Tigers Unite

🗓️Date: Saturday, December 13th
🕦Time: 10.30 AM
📍Location: Pratten Park
❓Why? Inner West Mayor Darcy Byrne has convened a rally to save Wests Tigers following the extraordinary sacking of all independent directors on the Wests Tigers board.

The rally will start at Pratten Park and will include a march to Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, where fans will demand that the Board of the Leagues Club (the Holman Barnes Group) resign.
 
hammertime said:
You said it. Do you think this is the best interests of the club or self-interest? There is no mechanism for them to find out, via member's vote, given that they have squatter's rights.

As I said in an earlier post, if these guys were democratically elected by the owners (i.e. members) and they had data to say this was in the best interest of the club, then so be it. But these guys parading around like they own something, acting on their own interests, is something that needs to be fixed.

They are not owners, like someone who actually put up their own cash, they are representatives for members and have a fiduciary duty to act in accordance with that.
Click to expand...
If there was any democratic process T all , Denise would have been shafted when they shafted Mick Potter . Seriously . Not one person on that HBG board would have thier job in a democratically elected position. And that’s just facts
 
cochise said:
View attachment 30489

Wests Tigers Unite

🗓️Date: Saturday, December 13th
🕦Time: 10.30 AM
📍Location: Pratten Park
❓Why? Inner West Mayor Darcy Byrne has convened a rally to save Wests Tigers following the extraordinary sacking of all independent directors on the Wests Tigers board.

The rally will start at Pratten Park and will include a march to Wests Ashfield Leagues Club, where fans will demand that the Board of the Leagues Club (the Holman Barnes Group) resign.
Click to expand...
Resign for what exactly?
 
hammertime said:
You said it. Do you think this is the best interests of the club or self-interest? There is no mechanism for them to find out, via member's vote, given that they have squatter's rights.

As I said in an earlier post, if these guys were democratically elected by the owners (i.e. members) and they had data to say this was in the best interest of the club, then so be it. But these guys parading around like they own something, acting on their own interests, is something that needs to be fixed.

They are not owners, like someone who actually put up their own cash, they are representatives for members and have a fiduciary duty to act in accordance with that.
Click to expand...
That's not up to me that's up to HBG and they obviously believe it's in the best interests of the club.
 
hammertime said:
Here's what google gemini managed to summarise for us for potential breaches. Keep in mind, this is just from publicly available information so will be limited.

Based on recent events involving the Holman Barnes Group (HBG)—including the mass sacking of the Wests Tigers board, the suspension of directors, and the internal handling of a "touching" incident—the members and the board have potentially breached several specific pieces of NSW legislation and industry codes.

1. Primary Legislative Breaches​

The most serious potential breaches relate to the Registered Clubs Act 1976 and the Liquor Act 2007, which govern the operation and integrity of clubs in NSW.

A. Registered Clubs Act 1976 (NSW)​

  • Section 30 (Rules of Registered Clubs): This section mandates that a club's rules must align with proper governance standards. The "shambolic" governance described by the Inner West Mayor and the mass suspension of directors could be seen as a failure to maintain rules that ensure the orderly conduct of the club.
    • Potential Breach: If certain directors (e.g., in the "touching" scandal) were protected from disciplinary action by their allies on the board, they effectively received a "benefit" (immunity/protection) not available to ordinary members, which is a serious breach of the Act.

B. Liquor Act 2007 (NSW)​

  • Section 68 (Fit and Proper Person Test):To hold a liquor licence or be a secretary/manager of a registered club, individuals must be "fit and proper."
    • Potential Breach: The alleged "touching" incident involving a director ("tapping" a woman with a voting paddle and making inappropriate comments) directly challenges this test. If the board knowingly retained a director who engaged in such conduct without appropriate action, the club itself risks being deemed non-compliant with its fit and proper person obligations.

C. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)​

  • Whistleblower Protections:The HBG disciplinary committee statement explicitly mentioned complaints made via "whistleblower channels."
    • Potential Breach: If the whistleblower who reported the "touching" incident or governance failures was ignored, identified, or retaliated against (or if the complaints were suppressed by a faction of the board), this would breach strict federal whistleblower laws.
  • Directors' Duties: Directors have a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company (the club). "Protecting" a colleague from misconduct allegations for political reasons is a breach of this duty.

2. Breaches of Codes of Practice​

Beyond the "hard" law, HBG members likely breached mandatory and voluntary industry codes that set the standard for ethical conduct.

A. Registered Clubs Accountability Code (Statutory)​

  • Status: Mandatory (Schedule 2 of the Registered Clubs Regulation 2015/2025).
  • Disclosure of Interests: Directors must disclose any material personal interest in a matter being considered by the board.
  • Potential Breach: In the context of the "boardroom coup" and infighting, if directors voted on matters where they had a personal conflict (e.g., voting to suspend a rival to save their own position), they breached this statutory code.

B. ClubsNSW Code of Practice​

  • Status: Condition of Membership (Enforced by ClubsNSW).
    • Potential Breach: The "touching" incident is a clear violation. Furthermore, the alleged "protection" of the accused director by others creates a culture that tolerates harassment, further breaching the code.
  • Responsible Governance: The Code requires boards to act with transparency and integrity. The "chaos," "instability," and mass sackings cited by public officials suggest a failure to meet these governance standards.

Summary of Potential Breaches​


Incident/IssuePotential BreachRelevant Authority
"Touching" ScandalFit & Proper Person TestLiquor Act 2007 (s68)
Harassment/Workplace ConductClubsNSW Code of Practice
Protecting Accused DirectorUndue Benefit to MemberRegistered Clubs Act 1976 (s10)
Fiduciary DutiesCorporations Act 2001
Board Infighting & CoupsGovernance RulesRegistered Clubs Act 1976 (s30)
Conflict of InterestRegistered Clubs Accountability Code
Ignoring ComplaintsWhistleblower ProtectionsCorporations Act 2001
Click to expand...
Just on the surface , there’s grounds for a serious investigation . The issue with all the backstabbing of last year , is there would be a lot of people willing to tell thier story .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 498 (members: 42, guests: 456)
Back
Top