HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

twentyforty said:
I had to check with AI to see if my memory wasn’t accurate. Here’s what the bot said…
“It seems you are referencing a specific, potent quote attributed to Lee Hagipantelis, likely during his tenure as the Wests Tigers chairman. That phrase, "we are here at the behest of the owners," speaks volumes about the dynamics of control and decision-making within the National Rugby League (NRL) club, highlighting a crucial period of internal politics and external pressure. The context around this statement is deeply intertwined with the club's governance structure and performance issues during his leadership.”
Click to expand...

Did he say that quote or not though ? That’s what I’m asking … I recall a different one
 
Jolls said:
You are missing the point. It is not that Meilekamp has plans to sack Benji or that the Mastrov rumour was incorrect. It is the deliberate destabilisation to set conditions for potential action. They set the conditions to make it untenable for Richo to remain - is this setting the conditions for Benji to walk. I don't know what the motives are, and unless you have inside information, neither do you.

The subtle leaks to the media are affecting the playing and coaching staff. If HBG are serious about making a fist of this the same or similar policy to the previous regime needs to be in place in relation to media leaks.
Click to expand...
Can't understand how people can't see what's going on here.

Name me one club. One organisation, that would have made these decisions in light of the metrics posted by the club last season. It seemed we were on track finally.

Usually, you would have 2 camps about whether or not the decision was warranted, but no one can understand it.

This is all agenda driven and the only thing we don't know for sure is what that true agenda is, but does it matter?
 
Jolls said:
You are missing the point. It is not that Meilekamp has plans to sack Benji or that the Mastrov rumour was incorrect. It is the deliberate destabilisation to set conditions for potential action. They set the conditions to make it untenable for Richo to remain - is this setting the conditions for Benji to walk. I don't know what the motives are, and unless you have inside information, neither do you.

The subtle leaks to the media are affecting the playing and coaching staff. If HBG are serious about making a fist of this the same or similar policy to the previous regime needs to be in place in relation to media leaks.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not missing the point.

We can go over the HBG issues till we are blue in the face... but we all know that HBG can't be anywhere near the club, there is no world in which they give this a red hot go with the best interest of the JV in mind... that ship sailed when they sacked the independent directors. You should give up any line of thought that includes HBG doing the right thing...

In otherwords, we need them gone... That we need to work on collectively as a unit over the next few years.

What I am trying to do is focus on the upside that we still have Shaun and Benji leading the charge from the football club... And that's the best possible outcome at this point in time given what has transpired over the last week. It gives us SOME hope for a competitive season in 2026.

#HBGout
 
Jolls said:
I am also distrustful of the media Ink, but when you link the replacement of the coach with players saying they will walk it is the typical political methodology for enacting change. Set the conditions so that the decision is made by someone else and you can have clean hands.

I disregarded the CEO speculation; however, it is likely that discussions have been had. I can only guess that one of the faceless that dont support Meilekamp let the cat out of the bag to see if Shaun would knock the postion back. IT is just the way they play the game.

Recho had it pretty much under control; until he lost it and HBG made his position as CEO untenable.
Click to expand...
yes
 
weststigers said:
Can't understand how people can't see what's going on here.

Name me one club. One organisation, that would have made these decisions in light of the metrics posted by the club last season. It seemed we were on track finally.

Usually, you would have 2 camps about whether or not the decision was warranted, but no one can understand it.

This is all agenda driven and the only thing we don't know for sure is what that true agenda is, but does it matter?
Click to expand...
The only way you could defend this is to have a personal connection to it.
 
Chunk said:
I found this in another thread.

Is this true because how can you call yourself the owners when you contibute less then 10% of the funding?

Main sources of funding for WTRLFC are the NRL grant ($20m), WT operations such as merchandising, ticketing ($3.3), sponsorships ($6.5m). HBG's contribution to WTRLFC funding is $1.7m.
Click to expand...
$1.7m? That’s about the same level of funding HBG earmarks for Wests Magpies?
 
twentyforty said:
Yes he did say it . It stuck in my mind, could not stop thinking about what he’d said because he convinced me that he and Pascoe were not to be relied upon for anything but doing what they were told to do.
Click to expand...

So the bot can produce the source then? It seems a bit unsure in the response… “ likely during his tenure “…. It is either during or not
 
twentyforty said:
I had to check with AI to see if my memory wasn’t accurate. Here’s what the bot said…
“It seems you are referencing a specific, potent quote attributed to Lee Hagipantelis, likely during his tenure as the Wests Tigers chairman. That phrase, "we are here at the behest of the owners," speaks volumes about the dynamics of control and decision-making within the National Rugby League (NRL) club, highlighting a crucial period of internal politics and external pressure. The context around this statement is deeply intertwined with the club's governance structure and performance issues during his leadership.”maybe Ai should run the club. Sounds like he knows better
Click to expand...
 
BZN said:
But what you don't want to admit by saying "we don't want Balmain back either" is the FACT that the names Tigers and Balmain can't be separated, they're the same entity.
What you should be saying is 'we don't need Balmain back... as we still have the [Balmain] Tigers name.
You have lost absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
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 acted upon, but at least heard and a democratic decision made.
 
Last edited:
Can't see the sleeping giant ever waking up while ever we suffer under our current governance structure.
How do people expect this club to generate new fans - Campbelltown or anywhere - when HBG appear more concerned about fanning the flames for fans of a club/s that no longer exist.
The self interest at the expense of the current supporter base is mind boggling.
 
Jolls said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is not the first time we have been to this rodeo…

I would suspect that he values the nickname more than the place name … i guess that’s his prerogative …although I thought most with this attitude would have moved on after 26 years if you wanted to genuinely support the new team ..
 
Jolls said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

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.
 
mtd#2 said:
No, I'm not missing the point.

What I am trying to do is focus on the upside that we still have Shaun and Benji leading the charge from the football club... And that's the best possible outcome at this point in time given what has transpired over the last week. It gives us SOME hope for a competitive season in 2026.

#HBGout
Click to expand...
I agree with you that Shaun and Benji are our best option currently.

I don't necessarily agree that HBG needs to go, although that would be a great outcome. What we need is for the debenture system to go so that the HBG board can be elected by the full membership.

The crux of this problem is about governance and representation.

While this is going on it is unhelpful for HBG (or other players in support of HBG) are destabilisng the joint through leaks, misinformation and silence on the matter.

Paton, on behalf of HBG, spoke about leadership and how they fully support Benji (and Richo at the time) yet they have not backed this up at all. They are the owners and have a responsibility to prevent this from occuring - and they aren't.

So I guess that we are somewhat in ageeance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 783 (members: 35, guests: 748)
Back
Top