HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

[The Chad]

Yes thats True, but at any moment the board of Wests Ashfield can dismiss the board of Wests Tigers as they just did. So regardless of what it's 27000 members think, only 5 debenture holders that sit on the Wests Ashfield board get a say in how Wests Tigers is run even if it is against the wishes of it's members and the community which they are obligated to serve.

Secondly, the debenture holders haven't put any of their own money in to this you know that right? The assets of Wests Ashfield (HBG), including Wests Tigers are funded by the community and/or by assets purchased over time with community funds.

This goes back to the balance. Now the issue is 90%-10%.

HBG are using "HBG money". If it is their literal own, or a "collective own", the HBG members, I assume, would expect those making decisions on what to do with those funds- to do it in the HBG cause & favour. Whether it is Dennis' money or Russell Smith's is pretty much irrelevant. It's the funds of HBG, and their board, however it is made up, are entrusted to do what is best for...HBG.

The question I've asked regarding that is- if HBG feel they are being overlooked/disrespected/kept in the dark...whatever...is it not 'understandable' that they might have an issue with the Wests Tigers board & feel that removing them was an acceptable thing to do? As a member of HBG, would you not also feel....like Wests Tigers/Balmain/Wests Ashfield/Magpies 'owe' them for some of that financial aid?

People are acting like HBG are absolute evil. I'm simply offering an idea that it might be how the other side see it.

 

[Plato]

I think WTs have enough hookers.

Fast play the ball and works for free.

 

[The Chad]

Fast play the ball and works for free.

Leaks to the media too much though

 

[weststigers]

This goes back to the balance. Now the issue is 90%-10%.

HBG are using "HBG money". If it is their literal own, or a "collective own", the HBG members, I assume, would expect those making decisions on what to do with those funds- to do it in the HBG cause & favour. Whether it is Dennis' money or Russell Smith's is pretty much irrelevant. It's the funds of HBG, and their board, however it is made up, are entrusted to do what is best for...HBG.

The question I've asked regarding that is- if HBG feel they are being overlooked/disrespected/kept in the dark...whatever...is it not 'understandable' that they might have an issue with the Wests Tigers board & feel that removing them was an acceptable thing to do? As a member of HBG, would you not also feel....like Wests Tigers/Balmain/Wests Ashfield/Magpies 'owe' them for some of that financial aid?

People are acting like HBG are absolute evil. I'm simply offering an idea that it might be how the other side see it.

Balmain is irrelevant to this discussion. They have a minority share and they have always had a minority share. That is not the point.

Wests Ashfield are not “owed” anything by Wests Tigers. They owe the community. They operate under a governance structure that does not mirror any other NRL club and that lack of accountability has caused enormous instability for us. Years of indecision, infighting and contradictory leadership all trace back to a board that answers to no one.

It is not about how 20 debenture holders feel. They are not elected and they do not represent anyone. A structure that concentrates power in the hands of a small, unelected group invites personal agendas that do not align with the expectations of the broader membership.

You only need to look at the stream of awful decisions to see that. The outrage here, the fact that people are giving up their weekend to protest, the involvement of the mayor, the NRL stepping in, and the media calling it out. These are not fringe reactions. This is widespread and consistent across different groups.

Are all of them wrong? Are we all misunderstanding the situation in the exact same way? Or is it more likely that the governance model is fundamentally broken and people are finally reacting to something that has been a powderkeg for years?

 

[weststigers]

WTF is going on. FFS this is just becoming a piss take now.
Apparently O'Farrell might be coming back as chairman.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]Shock Tigers backflip looms nine days after O'Farrell sacked​

​

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]Nic Negrepontis[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.58)]December 10, 2025 - 8.23pm[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]Share[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]

​

Mute



Loaded: 41.34%



​

Fullscreen

Richardson quits as Tigers CEO​

​

Nine days after he was sacked as Wests Tigers chairman, Barry O'Farrell is likely to make a shock return to the club, while Benji Marshall is on the verge of a contract extension.
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the move comes following a series of crisis talks between the NRL and the Tigers.
The Holman Barnes Group (HBG) sacked O'Farrell, as well as three independent directors, just over a week ago. He has now reportedly been asked to return to the role given the NRL's concerns over the state the club finds itself in

​

The Tigers have finished last in three of the last four seasons, and haven't played finals since 2019.
The SMH report says O'Farrell is aware of the NRL's desire for him to return to the role.
He is yet to confirm whether he will, but is open to heading back through the doors.
Balmain champion Benny Elias was strongly linked with the role before this potential sudden backflip emerged.
The report adds that the Wests Tigers will extend the contract of coach Benji Marshall through to the end of 2029.
The Tigers and Marshall are deep in negotiations, with an extension set to be finalised.
The goal is to create stability within the struggling organisation. Shaun Mielekamp has been appointed interim chief executive.
Marshall took over as coach at the start of the 2024 season, and has won 15 of 48 games at the helm.
He played 257 games for the Tigers across two stints during his career.[/COLOR]

Must have missed our 2019 finals appearance

 

[The Chad]

Balmain is irrelevant to this discussion. They have a minority share and they have always had a minority share. That is not the point.

Wests Ashfield are not “owed” anything by Wests Tigers. They owe the community. They operate under a governance structure that does not mirror any other NRL club and that lack of accountability has caused enormous instability for us. Years of indecision, infighting and contradictory leadership all trace back to a board that answers to no one.

It is not about how 20 debenture holders feel. They are not elected and they do not represent anyone. A structure that concentrates power in the hands of a small, unelected group invites personal agendas that do not align with the expectations of the broader membership.

You only need to look at the stream of awful decisions to see that. The outrage here, the fact that people are giving up their weekend to protest, the involvement of the mayor, the NRL stepping in, and the media calling it out. These are not fringe reactions. This is widespread and consistent across different groups.

Are all of them wrong? Are we all misunderstanding the situation in the exact same way? Or is it more likely that the governance model is fundamentally broken and people are finally reacting to something that has been a powderkeg for years?

Excellent points.

So what changed last year?

 

[weststigers]

Excellent points.

So what changed last year?

There was a protest demanding a review of governance and under pressure, they reluctantly implemented the findings. It's well documented.

Mate...people aren't missing anything. We've been living this drama for years. Some worked it out sooner than others, but after a while, you can't ignorebthe common denominator. It's very clear whats happened.

If you want to defend HBG or an obscure debenture system or play the contrarian or challenge every single negative thing about the people that have brought us down for years, then I'm not here to stop you, but your arguments aren't compelling enough to change anyone's mind.

 

[The Chad]

There was a protest demanding a review of governance and under pressure, they reluctantly implemented the findings. It's well documented.

Mate...people aren't missing anything. We've been living this drama for years. Some worked it out sooner than others, but after a while, you can't ignorebthe common denominator. It's very clear whats happened.

If you want to defend HBG or an obscure debenture system or play the contrarian or challenge every single negative thing about the people that have brought us down for years, then I'm not here to stop you, but your arguments aren't compelling enough to change anyone's mind.

But they did follow through with it.

And to this point, while they have removed members of the board- they have NOT moved away from the model.

Which then takes us back to a matter of what people think they know, and what they actually know.

I know that I don't know.

Many people believe they know. And are really upset about something, maybe.

 

[weststigers]

But they did follow through with it.

And to this point, while they have removed members of the board- they have NOT moved away from the model.

Which then takes us back to a matter of what people think they know, and what they actually know.

I know that I don't know.

Many people believe they know. And are really upset about something, maybe.

What makes you think they didn't move away from the independent board model?

Was it removing the independent board?

 

[crazycat]

Even with coercion or threat of not renewing license, what would you want NRL to do?

I value your opinion hence why I'm asking you what does the governance structure look like in an ideal scenario?

Loosing the license would be huge.
They could also threaten to suspend the tigers for X years. This would also be huge.

Were getting to the point where people who are very external to the club are taking interest. Bad things can happen.

 

[The Chad]

What makes you think they didn't move away from the independent board model?

Was it removing the independent board?

They absolutely removed the independent board members. For reasons that they seem to believe are reasonable (which unless you like circles- we'll agree have been covered).

What they have not done or said is- the independent board member model doesn't work.

As I asked for the last couple of days- if 4 new independents & a new CEO are put in place, is the hysteria warranted?

 

[The Chad]

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...S&cvid=69398947c6fc4075a517e7b7882fcd6d&ei=12

One of the most speculative 'news reports' I've read in a while

 

[weststigers]

They absolutely removed the independent board members. For reasons that they seem to believe are reasonable (which unless you like circles- we'll agree have been covered).

What they have not done or said is- the independent board member model doesn't work.

As I asked for the last couple of days- if 4 new independents & a new CEO are put in place, is the hysteria warranted?

Yes. Because it doesn't stop what just happened happening again.

 

[liltiger]

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...S&cvid=69398947c6fc4075a517e7b7882fcd6d&ei=12

One of the most speculative 'news reports' I've read in a while

It might be speculative but from the outside looking in what was done last week is proof our majority owners are incompetent when it comes to running an N.R.L franchise. No one, no other club no matter how poorly run or how in the dark they were, if they were, would have come close to doing what HBG board did. There were ample other options that could have been taken. They could have very easily set up a conference call between the two boards, a meeting anything. They chose to blow the joint up.

 

[Flash089]

What you again fail to understand is the majority aren't Balmain people, Balmain are not the solution, they are part of the problem.

We are Wests Tigers people, we love the Wests part of our name. The debenture holders due not own the Wests Tigers, the hbg directors do not own the Wests Tigers, they are custodians only and have failed in that role.

I’m confused. You say « we love the Wests part of our name » Does that mean you don’t care for the Tigers part of our name? How can you be a committed fan of our team, the Wests Tigers? And you say Balmain is part of the problem; do you also mean Wests are part of the problem ? Or just Balmain? Is there a Magpie hiding in the woodpile?

 

[Tito Santana]

Thanks Chad, but we knew that

My message to Wests Magpies supporters because you can’t rename our club.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

Marshall to be offered a contract extension till end of 29 is a sure sign HBG is feeling the blow torch from supporters and the NRL.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

I’m confused. You say « we love the Wests part of our name » Does that mean you don’t care for the Tigers part of our name? How can you be a committed fan of our team, the Wests Tigers? And you say Balmain is part of the problem; do you also mean Wests are part of the problem ? Or just Balmain? Is there a Magpie hiding in the woodpile?

Cochise is a passionate WTs' supporter. I take it to mean we should be proud of our heritage but need to be unified in our support for WTs. I am a huge Balmain supporter but know the future is WTs. Many youngsters from the inner west and Campbelltown and Macarthur support only WTs.

Black and Gold never folds.

 

[Flash089]

Cochise is a passionate WTs' supporter. I take it to mean we should be proud of our heritage but need to be unified in our support for WTs. I am a huge Balmain supporter but know the future is WTs. Many youngsters from the inner west and Campbelltown and Macarthur support only WTs.

Black and Gold never folds.

Thanks ! I guess I’m seeing negative conspiracies everywhere now. I can’t believe this is happening to our club.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

It might be speculative but from the outside looking in what was done last week is proof our majority owners are incompetent when it comes to running an N.R.L franchise. No one, no other club no matter how poorly run or how in the dark they were, if they were, would have come close to doing what HBG board did. There were ample other options that could have been taken. They could have very easily set up a conference call between the two boards, a meeting anything. They chose to blow the joint up.

Good post. I am of the view it was worse than incompetence.