weststigers
Well-known member
Let's get to the crux if the issue though. 90% or not, Balmain majority or Wests majority. Do 20 unelected people speak for thousands of fans and stakeholders?By your own logic BZN you have lost absolutely nothing as we still have the Wests (Magpies) name.
Both factions in the JV have been stupidly childish in their off field approach to runing the JV. Unfortunately our major shareholder has a demonstrated track record of ineptitude when it comes to running a football department and does not fairly represent the views of its members due the protectionist nature of the constitution.
There are plenty of people that want Balmain back and probably an equal number that want the Magpies back. But they are the minority.
Sure I get the 90% ownership argument etc; however, given the makeup of the HBG and Wests Magpies boards what give you the impression that the decisions made are the decisions the majority of members want? Has there been a vote taken by the membership?
I'm sure that if the debenture holders did not have next to absolute power you would have plenty of people jump on board so that their opinions can be heard - not that it guarantees it will be enacted upon, but at least heard and a democratice decision made.
I'd be exactly the same if Balmain owned the club and they were setup like that. It has nothing to do with Wests or Balmain. It is squarely on the 20 unelected individuals that control power.