HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

Yossarian said:
Not sure you can equate the very brief Sydney Tigers period with changing the Wests Tigers to the Wests Magpies. The former was frustrating for me personally but I never thought of it as not my club.
Changing to Wests Magpies is totally different. That’s not a new identity or a rebranding, that’s a different club, an existing club and not my club. I’d walk away at that point. If the proposal was to change to the Newtown Jets or the Wellington Whales I’d feel the same.

What you’re describing isn’t a subtle rebrand, it’s a complete and total takeover. People would not shrug their shoulders and “cope”.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree, the Sydney Tigers at Parramatta change wasn’t as dramatic as this current change might be (not that it’s happening). But it was a hefty change nonetheless and people coped.

The biggest change of course was the merger and while many were driven away, ultimately a core of rusted on followers coped (with endless spot fires breaking out along the way).
And new fans came on board and here we are - all coping as best we can 👍
 
Harvey said:
So the liquor and gaming board investigate where a board is not looking after the interest of members.

Surely continuing having to hand over the members money via settlements to people that are sacked because positions are reversed or given the opportunity to sue due to the incompetency of those that have made the decision.

The club members should vote to remove indemnity from directors for decisions that they are not qualified to make where they do not seek expert advice. Some would be less keen to exert influence if it was their own money they were risking
Click to expand...
Wests Tigers is a private company.

It's under the jurisdiction of ASIC, not liquor and gaming.
 
Bus 2 Terrigal said:
Yeah I agree, the Sydney Tigers at Parramatta change wasn’t as dramatic as this current change might be (not that it’s happening). But it was a hefty change nonetheless and people coped.

The biggest change of course was the merger and while many were driven away, ultimately a core of rusted on followers coped (with endless spot fires breaking out along the way).
And new fans came on board and here we are - all coping as best we can 👍
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but if you think Sydney Tigers or even the JV are equivalent things to changing to bring the Wests Magpies, you are way off the mark. As it was the JV saw a lot of Balmain fans walk away but most, like myself, saw it as a new entity with a strong Balmain element. The Magpies are not that. They weren’t my club, they aren’t my club, they wouldn’t be my club. I’ve got nothing against the Magpies but basically you’re asking me and others to support a new team.

I wouldn’t do it, a lot of others would feel the same. Would a Wests Magpies team gather fresh fans over time? Probably. But how long if ever do you replace the number they’d lose?
 
BAGNF05 said:
aabdo@nrl.com.au
reception@nrl.com.au
Click to expand...
Sent:

Dear Mr Abdo,

I’ll be very respectful of your time as I know you’re an important bloke.

Please do help us fans against the actions of HBG with Wests Tigers. We’ve been waiting a long time for stability and success and just when we’re on the right path, the HBG board have blown up the club again. This is a very similar pattern to their internal issues at board level with their recent coups and power grabs.

For them to continue on this current path, will put us back another 5-10 years from achieving growth. They do not have the qualifications or experience, as evidenced by these recent events, and us members feel extremely helpless. We’ll be turning away from the game in droves if this continues on the current trajectory.

The statements today from Mr Paton just reek of an amateurish understanding of the impacts of action like this and a total lack of their own responsibility. It does not seem like their WT board representatives have done their job, nor did the HBG board take a course of discussion or internal rectification, as evidenced by the shock from the other independents.

There has been no consideration for members or the game in this course of action, only their own egos.

Please help us with this Mr Abdo.
 
Papacito said:
Wests Tigers is a private company.

It's under the jurisdiction of ASIC, not liquor and gaming.
Click to expand...

Can someone give these guys a call? [perhaps not, they're Queenslander's 😛]

https://bosslawyers.com.au/understa...ights-and-remedies-for-minority-shareholders/

Shareholder oppression is a significant issue that can leave minority shareholders vulnerable to unfair treatment by majority stakeholders or company directors. If you find yourself excluded from key decisions, denied access to financial records, or unfairly stripped of your dividends, you may be experiencing shareholder oppression. Understanding your legal rights and the remedies available under Australian corporate law is essential to protect your interests.


At Boss Lawyers, we specialise in representing oppressed shareholders and ensuring they receive fair treatment. In this article, we explore what constitutes shareholder oppression, legal protections under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and how you can take action to safeguard your investment.


What Is Shareholder Oppression?​


Shareholder oppression occurs when those in control of a company engage in conduct that is unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory towards minority shareholders. This can manifest in various ways, including:


  • Exclusion from Management – Being shut out from key business decisions despite holding shares.
  • Financial Misconduct – Misuse of company funds or excessive payments to directors at the expense of shareholders.
  • Dilution of Shares – Issuing new shares unfairly, reducing the ownership stake of existing shareholders.
  • Withholding Dividends – Unjustifiably refusing to distribute profits while directors receive high salaries.
  • Denial of Information – Preventing access to company financial records or key decision-making processes.

If you are facing any of these issues, legal action may be necessary to ensure you receive fair treatment.


Legal Protections for Oppressed Shareholders​


Under Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the court can intervene when a company’s affairs are conducted in a manner that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or discriminatory to a shareholder. If shareholder oppression is proven, the court has broad powers to grant remedies under Section 233, including:


  • Forced Buyout – Ordering majority shareholders or the company to buy out the oppressed shareholder’s shares at a fair market value.
  • Company Winding Up – As a last resort, the court can order the company to be dissolved.
  • Regulating Company Conduct – The court may impose rules on how the company should operate to prevent further oppression.
  • Constitutional Changes – Altering the company’s governance structure to protect minority shareholders.

Seeking legal advice early can help determine the best course of action in your specific situation.


Case Study: How Courts Value an Oppressed Shareholder’s Interest​


A landmark case in Australia, Russell v Lee Holdings Pty Ltd [No 3] [2020] WASC 346, provides important insights into how courts approach shareholder oppression claims.


In this case, the Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked to determine the fair value of an oppressed shareholder’s stake. The court rejected attempts to apply discounts for lack of control or marketability, ensuring the minority shareholder received a fair price for their shares.


This case highlights the importance of obtaining professional valuation advice when negotiating a buyout and seeking court intervention if necessary.


Steps to Take if You Are Being Oppressed​


If you believe you are being subjected to shareholder oppression, consider taking the following steps:


  1. Document Everything – Keep records of all actions that you believe are oppressive, including financial statements, meeting minutes, and correspondence.
  2. Seek Legal Advice – A lawyer experienced in corporate disputes can assess your situation and advise you on potential legal remedies.
  3. Negotiate a Resolution – In some cases, a negotiated buyout or settlement may be preferable to litigation.
  4. File Legal Proceedings – If negotiations fail, court intervention may be necessary to enforce your rights and secure fair compensation.
 
Yossarian said:
I’m sorry but if you think Sydney Tigers or even the JV are equivalent things to changing to bring the Wests Magpies, you are way off the mark. As it was the JV saw a lot of Balmain fans walk away but most, like myself, saw it as a new entity with a strong Balmain element. The Magpies are not that. They weren’t my club, they aren’t my club, they wouldn’t be my club. I’ve got nothing against the Magpies but basically you’re asking me and others to support a new team.

I wouldn’t do it, a lot of others would feel the same. Would a Wests Magpies team gather fresh fans over time? Probably. But how long if ever do you replace the number they’d lose?
Click to expand...
I accept all that, but let me add there is a difference between Wests Magpies coming back as they were pre merger, and the Wests Tigers changing their name and emblem but remaining the same in every other respect. So Leichhardt games would remain, a Tiger on the sleeve etc - maybe even a Balmain heritage game every season 🤷‍♂️

This would probably also be unacceptable to old Balmain types, but you get my distinction from a total take over.
 
BAGNF05 said:
Forward this onto PVL
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response.

I have not changed my mind. I purchased a membership of a rugby league club run by an independent board that made professional decisions in the interests of the club and its members.

This is no longer the case. I have received a membership to a rugby league club run by a group of dinosaurs who act solely in their own interest.

Therefore the product I have purchased is defective or significantly different from what was advertised. Can you please advise under consumer law, what are the grounds for me being denied a refund?
 
hammertime said:
I'd be walking if I were Benji and the players will follow him

HBG argues about not being consulted on a stadium long-term contract, but, arguably, they've done more damage in the last 4 days than the total value of that contract. They could have easily fixed this in-house.

We won't have any quality players sign with us for a long time now. You can kiss that top 8 goodbye for at least another 5-10 years.

The only thing that will save us now is the NRL, L&G or HBG restructuring on their own accord, with Richo staying. Confidence won't come from HBG continuing to pursue this direction.
Click to expand...
Benji should go with richo. Results are not going to improve once the footy side is affected.
Terry Lamb is a Maggie junior and avaliable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

... and 7 more.
Total: 695 (members: 57, guests: 638)
Back
Top