HBG Directors give themselves Pay rise

It’s been dubbed ‘the most chaotic board in NSW’. But Wests Tigers’ owners are pushing for a pay rise

By Chris Barrett

March 7, 2026 — 4.21pm
Wests Tigers’ owners are bidding to give themselves a pay rise three months after a shambolic episode in which they sacked chairman Barry O’Farrell and three other directors before backflipping at the behest of the NRL.

The Holman Barnes Group, which owns 90 per cent of the Tigers and holds the licence for the NRL team, has for the past year been embroiled in turmoil that has threatened to spill over into the football club.

Now, its board members are seeking a boost which would see them collect more than their counterparts at most other Sydney clubs with ties to NRL teams.

HBG is proposing that its chairman’s annual honorarium be lifted from $51,341 to $65,000, the deputy chair’s fee to be raised from $33,371 to $50,000, and all other directors to get $32,500 instead of $25,670. All would also receive an extra $5000 if they sit on a club committee.

The effective $70,000 payment per annum for the chairman would eclipse the amounts paid to those in charge at most of Sydney’s major NRL-affiliated leagues clubs, including those with much larger membership bases.

Parramatta Leagues Club, which owns the Eels and has 65,000 members, gives its president $30,000 a year and other directors $20,000.

The 60,000-member Canterbury League Club, which is strongly linked to the Bulldogs and backs them financially, allows for a total of $229,801 to be paid to its seven directors including the chairman – an average of $32,828, although the chair and deputy chair receive a greater share.

St George Leagues Club, which owns 50 per cent of the Dragons and has 25,000 members, hands its chair $16,000 a year and ordinary directors $12,000, plus $2000 for each committee they sit on.

HBG has 27,000 members and the proposed honoraria for its board are exceeded only by those at Penrith NRL team owners Panthers Group, where total revenue was nearly $180 million in 2025 and which has a membership base of 148,000. The Panthers’ chairman receives $80,000 a year, its two deputies get $40,000 each and the remaining directors pick up $20,000 per annum.

Like those at other clubs, the HBG board members can take advantage of other perks of the position such as food and drinks. At the club’s annual general meeting on March 21 members will also be asked to approve its chairman and deputy receiving $500 per month hospitality cards.

As Holman Barnes Group’s business has expanded, the workload and governance responsibilities placed on directors have increased substantially,” said HBG vice-chairman Frank Primerano, who also sits on the Wests Tigers board.

“The proposed adjustments simply bring board honorariums into line with the scale of the organisation and the time commitment required, particularly as directors are increasingly involved in committees and strategic projects during this period of significant growth and investment.”

A source familiar with the activities of HBG, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said: “How can the most chaotic board in NSW simultaneously become one of the highest paid?

“If the stipend for the board were based on performance then quite obviously these people would be getting a pay cut, not a pay day.”

HBG, which oversees venues including Wests Ashfield, returned a net profit of $11.9 million in 2025 after raking in $52 million from poker machines and recording overall revenue of $100 million, according to its annual report.

But the organisation has been plagued by dysfunction during the past 18 months, with several board members controversially removed and former NSW premier O’Farrell and three other independent directors then sensationally axed from the Tigers last December less than a year after they were installed following a governance review.

After concerns were raised by the NRL, HBG reinstated them days later and O’Farrell was Tigers chairman. But the club was forced into a costly payout to Tigers chief executive Shane Richardson, who resigned amid the boardroom chaos 18 months into a four-year contract, and settled out of court with former HBG director Rick Wayde, a key instigator of the Tigers review, after he was banned for eight years.

HBG, which owns the NRL team via its control of Wests Magpies, has since beefed up its representation on the Tigers board, giving it an effective majority.

While the Tigers are governed separately to their owners, NRL funding for the team flows through HBG.

According to its latest financial report, HBG received $20 million from the NRL in 2025 and owes $36 million to players and head coach Benji Marshall over the next five years.

HBG is unusual in that the balance of power lies with 20 so-called debenture holders, who choose the majority of its directors under a decades-old, undemocratic system.

Only two of nine board seats are directly elected by the wider membership and there will not be a ballot for those spots at this month’s AGM after one of the three nominations withdrew.

The two remaining are well known to HBG board members: Shannon Cavanagh, a director of Wests Magpies alongside HBG chairman Dennis Burgess and Primerano, and Aldo Di Mento, a director of APIA Leichardt FC – the inner-west soccer team in which HGB bought a stake last year and on whose board Primerano and HBG chief executive Daniel Paton also sit.
 
Probably remembered they had 2 representatives on the board so if was a ridiculous suggestion.
From the video-

"Holman Barnes Board were left in the dark on some commercially sensitive announcements"
Any ideas on what that might be? In other reports I think I read that HBG members were hearing announcements at games (halftime announcements?) before they heard it at HBG board meetings.

"Communication between boards has not been satisfactory"
This is quite possible & might not be 100% related to the finances?

"Need to be consulted on decisions that impact the club's financial future"
I believe this was part of HBG's stipulation when putting the changes (independent review) in place- that financial decisions were run past HBG first.

"Reiterate commitment to Balmain"
This surely has to be there to negate the press/fan talk of HBG wanting to "bring back the Magpies"

This is the only record of the reasons for the changes. Until we hear different- I'm going to assume this is THE reasons. And they seem....reasonable in on themselves. How they come about is obviously questionable given board members of HBG being on the Tigers board.

Could there have been decisions given the green light at Wests Tigers board level, and announced, prior to HBG having had board meetings to discuss?
 
In my opinion they are past being given the benefit of the doubt. The review found major governance issues. They had my support until they dismissed the independent directors.
I appreciate your stance. Obviously you have a longer association with them than I do.
 
It could be a message to say they really are trying to do things better and not the enemy of Wests Tigers as a rugby league team.
I’m not sure why everything has to be turned into a negative when the overall comradarie, attitude and confidence of our players appears to be sky high.
Nobody has to be a fan of Wests or their board, but surely we are smart enough and mature enough to understand it’s better to sit back to wait and see how this seasons results turn out before wanting to keep focusing and trying to find more problems at every opportunity.
I honestly find it very childish to be focusing more on this than on the actual players and rugby league team.
Ive been saying this for months. Agree 100%
 
My favourite part of the charity day was when they were handing out checks. They gave $3000 to the Wests Ashfield Backgammon society. They cut up and stormed off after getting their check. As they walked past me they were complaining they got the least money
Don't say that in front of the Wests Ashfield Ladies Golf Club & their $1,500 donation...they have bigger clubs to wield.
 
From the video-

"Holman Barnes Board were left in the dark on some commercially sensitive announcements"
Any ideas on what that might be? In other reports I think I read that HBG members were hearing announcements at games (halftime announcements?) before they heard it at HBG board meetings.

"Communication between boards has not been satisfactory"
This is quite possible & might not be 100% related to the finances?

"Need to be consulted on decisions that impact the club's financial future"
I believe this was part of HBG's stipulation when putting the changes (independent review) in place- that financial decisions were run past HBG first.

"Reiterate commitment to Balmain"
This surely has to be there to negate the press/fan talk of HBG wanting to "bring back the Magpies"

This is the only record of the reasons for the changes. Until we hear different- I'm going to assume this is THE reasons. And they seem....reasonable in on themselves. How they come about is obviously questionable given board members of HBG being on the Tigers board.

Could there have been decisions given the green light at Wests Tigers board level, and announced, prior to HBG having had board meetings to discuss?
Problem is, it is the HBG Representatives on the WT Board responsibility to ensure they have properly informed the HBG board.

Are you saying that the HBG reps voted for things that they didn't have approval to do so from HBG?

If that is the case, why were the independent directors at fault for this?

To me it appears they gave a reason that wasn't true, then had to remove the video stating those reasons and reappoint the independent directors.

2 of the independent directors decided not to return and who could blame them after having their professional reputations damaged by accusations they acted inappropriately.

This is why I have an issue with HBG, they just make stuff up on the run and it makes is look like a dysfunctional organisation.
 
I find it crazy how the HBG directors and Dennis refuse to read the room. They are a chaotic mess and have lead to the situation our club is in today.

There is only a small percentage of Western Suburbs Magpies and Balmain Tigers fans left. The majority of supporters today are proud Wests Tigers fans, so HBG’s mission to bring back the Magpies will never happen.

Hopefully this is their last pay rise, and Laundy Hotels continue to negotiate a licence takeover with PVL and the NRL.
There is no proof that there is a mission from HBG to bring back the Magpies. Stop believing everything you read
 
Problem is, it is the HBG Representatives on the WT Board responsibility to ensure they have properly informed the HBG board.

Are you saying that the HBG reps voted for things that they didn't have approval to do so from HBG?

If that is the case, why were the independent directors at fault for this?

To me it appears they gave a reason that wasn't true, then had to remove the video stating those reasons and reappoint the independent directors.

2 of the independent directors decided not to return and who could blame them after having their professional reputations damaged by accusations they acted inappropriately.

This is why I have an issue with HBG, they just make stuff up on the run and it makes is look like a dysfunctional organisation.
Not quite. I'm saying they may have voted positively.

But that this decision (whatever it was) was not run by HBG as per their stipulation, at a HBG board level, prior to being announced.

It could be a timing issue.

Or maybe it was decisions made away from the board (Wests Tigers) that didn't get put to HBG?

Going out on a limb- Paton referenced making profits 15 years away- that this might be to do with the stadium deals.

Who made those?
 
Not quite. I'm saying they may have voted positively.

But that this decision (whatever it was) was not run by HBG as per their stipulation, at a HBG board level, prior to being announced.

It could be a timing issue.

Or maybe it was decisions made away from the board (Wests Tigers) that didn't get put to HBG?

Going out on a limb- Paton referenced making profits 15 years away- that this might be to do with the stadium deals.

Who made those?
Then how is that the fault of the independent directors?
 
Then how is that the fault of the independent directors?
I'm not 100% sure the issue was ever the independent directors & more a case that HBG didn't feel things were working as stipulated in what they agreed on- and therefore removed all the independents to go back to Ground Zero.

It could go some way to why they offered some of those roles back at a later date. It wasn't about the individuals on the board so much as the composition. Maybe?

Could it be to do with the legal terminology used in how the board was put together? The only way to restructure it was to dismantle it? Start again?
 
I'm not 100% sure the issue was ever the independent directors & more a case that HBG didn't feel things were working as stipulated in what they agreed on- and therefore removed all the independents to go back to Ground Zero.

It could go some way to why they offered some of those roles back at a later date. It wasn't about the individuals on the board so much as the composition. Maybe?

Could it be to do with the legal terminology used in how the board was put together? The only way to restructure it was to dismantle it? Start again?
So you are ok with them damaging the professional reputation of the independent directors by stating they were removed for a lack of communication?
 
I'm going to assume I'm one of the 4.
They won’t even concede the obvious that our governance on all levels has been a joke .

Wests Tigers, historically (and definitely most recently) have not been run very well.

Where the blame is placed is open to conjecture. I know where the group want to point- that's ok. It's also ok to think differently.

To the point of HBG, and the "HBGout"-think, this is where I, personally, 100% disagree.

HBG should be encouraged to be involved. Worked with. Even....respected for what they DO actually do.

I do not believe they are 100% the reason for 3 wooden spoons, which does appear to be one of the defining failures of their regime.

If I have not acknowledged any point I agree with made by others (I thought I had made an effort), I'll try harder.

The aggression, for lack of a better word, directed toward those that do not agree with the masses, can make one feel a little....how shall I say...defensive? Might influence the way responses come back.

Outside of one or two people, I've tried to respond when something is directed my way. I hope you feel your point is received.

Also- when I say "I don't know", I mean- I don't know. It's not a diversion. I didn't realise the board contained so many people that 'know'.
If you’re conceding that statement as a truism , you’re clearly not one of the 4 mate .
Rational debate is not what I’m talking about . Offering alternative thoughts and finding different ways to think about things has never been the issue . Especially when it begins from a place where common sense begins ie. wests tigers governance is a circus ! Always has been .
If you’re willing to concede that ,which you are , like I said it would be hypocritical of me to say I’m trying to find common ground when I reject a well thought out alternate argument .
The issue is clear diversion tactics , attempts at re routing the conversation to be about wests v Balmain , and faux outrage to gain sympathy and then shift . Which as much as I disagree with you . You’re not one of those . You just have a different opinion . And that’s ok . You seem willing to break bread though . Which was my whole point.
 
So you are ok with them damaging the professional reputation of the independent directors by stating they were removed for a lack of communication?
I wouldn't- if they directed the comment in that way.

They said that the Wests Tigers board wasn't working in 'some areas' & was removed as a result. They didn't point the finger at any individual & say "there's the culprit".

It sounded more like HBG didn't feel the way the board was operating fit with what they expected.

As an aside- with the 'new board'- how many old board members stay on without being re-selected? The HBG guys were replaced, weren't they?
 
Back
Top