Due to our structure there are two competing and different issues. Our club, unless you are also a Member of Wests Ashfield/HBG is Wests Tigers and they are completely responsible for the pathways programme from players to coaches to talent scouts and so on down the line. However, they have limited funds - especially in comparison to other teams in the NRL. This is why Richo was so keen on fixing the corporate side of the house - so profits generated could be used to benefit "our club".
HBG are the owners and their responsibilities extends well beyond Wests Tigers, although you can mount a very strong argument that the distribution of profits is out of kilter with the objects outlined in the constitution. If you take a literal interpretation HBG exists to do three things:
1. To provide for members and members' guests a social and sporting Club.
2. To assist in the promotion conduct and propagation of Rugby League football in the Rugby League Football District of the Western Suburbs of Sydney, or elsewhere, and to provide or assist in the provision of training and conditioning and teaching facilities for football played in accordance with the rules of the New SouthWales Rugby Football League.
3. To render aid either financial or by other means to clubs or associations in the Rugby League Football District of the Western Suburbs of Sydney, or elsewhere, which clubs or associations are playing or conducting football played in accordance with the Rules of the New South Wales Rugby Football League.
I think these are pretty clear objectives and the intent was for the monies raised by HBG to be shared between supporting patrons and promoting rugby league. However, there is an objective that gives the board some wriggle room:
To establish support or aid in the establishment and support of associations funds, trust and conveniences calculated to benefit the members of the Club or the dependents or connections of such members and to make payments towards insurance for any purpose and to subscribe or guarantee money for charitable or benevolent objects or for any exhibitions for any public general or useful objects.
I expect this is the catch all that HBG uses to fund cricket, soccer, rugby union, the fishing club etc. It is a valid objective; however, in some cases is in direct conflict with objectives 2 and 3 above - promoting direct competition for our junior base from other codes.
Certainly the funds that go to sporting associations other than Wests Tigers are significantly less, but they are significantly less then SFA to start with in the general scheme of things. Especially when you compare us to similar "not for profit" type clubs; e.g. Canberra and Cronulla.
I'm not about to go and dig up the data again as it takes a lot of effort to find - but if we look at the 2024 data I pulled last year:
Canberra: Overall Profit $92M. Contribution to football operations (over and above the cap) $5M (0.54%).
Cronulla: Overall Profit around $20M. Contribution to football operations $5M plus $2.74M the football club made in profits. (20%)
Wests Tigers: Overall Profit $67.8M. Contribution to football operations $1.8M (0.26%)
So when it comes to all the things like pathways and staffing that make one football club a better destination than another (the nice things to have v the essential things) we are $3.2M behind Canberra and $5.94M behind the Sharks. So the nice things to have includes the ability to pay junior contracts that are outside of the cap, pay for coaching and other staff to run the club and its pathways, better hotel accommodation on trips etc.
Now we are closer in structure to Canberra as HBG and the Raiders both have a number of community clubs. It is also difficult to ascertain what funds are going where but I live around the Canberra region and my good wife works for one of the Raiders major sponsors. So I get to attend the odd corporate event. I have had the opportunity to chat with a few key stakeholders in the Raiders organisation about their funding and they are happy with the amount they have and said if they neeeded more for a particular project or for expaasion they expect they would get it. They would simply need to raise a business case and outline how it fits into the constitution, how it benefits the community and the benefits for the club overall (more members, more profit etc).
It simply isn't a level playing field and my understanding is that our football department has been screaming for funds. It was the key issue raised by SM when he held the fan engagement meetings to support his goal of fixing our pathways; the key being to have the club put more $ into the football operations (willingly).
Not hearing this pain from Canberra or Cronulla!
So let's say that all of the other sporting and fishing associations combined received the same $1.8M as Wests Tigers; that leaves $64.2M being invested back into the punters and other philanthropic organisations at HBG's venues after running espenses (95%).
Read the constitution and if you still think that the way HBG are running the joint is in line with the intent of the organsiation when it was established please explain it to me in simple english - because I don't get it!
