HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

weststigers said:
As a forum content creator, you really should expect this level of audience interaction, Chad. Some of us are only here for your plot twists.
Click to expand...
I'm not that interesting.

But what IS interesting is that it appears to be perfectly acceptable for a large number of people to join in on a mob mentality of 'pick on the weaker number' if the opinion doesn't exactly match the company line.

Call people what you like, if they don't agree with the majority.

In fact, make an open suggestion to ban those posters for having a contrary opinion.

And nobody calls it out.
 
weststigers said:
You and I are friends. I agree with everything you say. At least publicly. I simply facilitate discussion between you and the wider group. I'm trying to help you!
Click to expand...
I know that. (Didn't expect to know so much in one day).

I try real hard not to tell people they are 'wrong'. I do try to give an alternative view point. I think you get that. Not everyone can see through the mock self-induce rage over things out of their control.
 
The Chad said:
I'm not that interesting.

But what IS interesting is that it appears to be perfectly acceptable for a large number of people to join in on a mob mentality of 'pick on the weaker number' if the opinion doesn't exactly match the company line.

Call people what you like, if they don't agree with the majority.

In fact, make an open suggestion to ban those posters for having a contrary opinion.

And nobody calls it out.
Click to expand...
Now you know how criminal defense lawyers feel.
 
The Chad said:
I know that. (Didn't expect to know so much in one day).

I try real hard not to tell people they are 'wrong'. I do try to give an alternative view point. I think you get that. Not everyone can see through the mock self-induce rage over things out of their control.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I could put it into perspective?

You're trying to offer an obscure viewpoint to people that have had their club systematically destroyed over a 10 year period. Maybe you're super chilled about everything, but I know you're smart enough to realise that you'd be in the minority.

All this at a time when the latest balls up is not only fresh, but developing and getting more outrageous with every news report.

if you were expecting people to engage in a rational and unemotional way to a contrarian viewpoint, that some may argue was stirring the pot, then perhaps you need to lower your expectations a little.
 
The Chad said:
Are people hoping that the financiers of the club are rubbed out all together?
Click to expand...
It has to do with concentration of power to unelected individuals.

It's why all these dramas keep happening.

HBG as an entity isn't really the issue, it's the governance structure that is the issue. If that goes, HBG begins to operate like a normal club with member voting and things change completely. You wouldn't need protests, you'd just cast your member vote at the AGM if you felt strongly one way or another.
 
weststigers said:
Perhaps I could put it into perspective?

You're trying to offer an obscure viewpoint to people that have had their club systematically destroyed over a 10 year period. Maybe you're super chilled about everything, but I know you're smart enough to realise that you'd be in the minority.

All this at a time when the latest balls up is not only fresh, but developing and getting more outrageous with every news report.

if you were expecting people to engage in a rational and unemotional way to a contrarian viewpoint, that some may argue was stirring the pot, then perhaps you need to lower your expectations a little.
Click to expand...
I've actually offered very few viewpoints. Just questions.

You're right- the 'reports' are outrageous. Almost, some might suggest, inflated beyond any kind of reality.

But that's kind of the point. "Reports". The reaction has been hysterical (not funny) over some 3rd hand 'reports'. And any alternative view is unacceptable.

I am chilled out. Some "Troll-like" version of me (that was a name I missed on my roll call) enjoys trying to get people thinking in a different way. And yeah- some people are probably descended too far into the rainbow coloured mist (I'd say red mist, but want to be more inclusive) to contemplate a different view.

But if that isn't what a forum is about....I'll be damned. If I had known I was signing up for a propaganda machine instead, I'd have lowered my expectations as suggested.
 
  • Love
Reactions: BZN
weststigers said:
It has to do with concentration of power to unelected individuals.

It's why all these dramas keep happening.

HBG as an entity isn't really the issue, it's the governance structure that is the issue. If that goes, HBG begins to operate like a normal club with member voting and things change completely. You wouldn't need protests, you'd just cast your member vote at the AGM if you felt strongly one way or another.
Click to expand...
Sounds almost like what you're asking for is a balanced, even board. One where 2 sides offer similar input & the onus isn't on one side to prop up the other, potentially leading that side to feeling like they probably deserve a bigger say...

If ONLY someone had suggested as much previously.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BZN
The Chad said:
I've actually offered very few viewpoints. Just questions.

You're right- the 'reports' are outrageous. Almost, some might suggest, inflated beyond any kind of reality.

But that's kind of the point. "Reports". The reaction has been hysterical (not funny) over some 3rd hand 'reports'. And any alternative view is unacceptable.

I am chilled out. Some "Troll-like" version of me (that was a name I missed on my roll call) enjoys trying to get people thinking in a different way. And yeah- some people are probably descended too far into the rainbow coloured mist (I'd say red mist, but want to be more inclusive) to contemplate a different view.

But if that isn't what a forum is about....I'll be damned. If I had known I was signing up for a propaganda machine instead, I'd have lowered my expectations as suggested.
Click to expand...
The pitchforks are out this time Chad. They're not having it.

It'll swing back around....
 
The Chad said:
Sounds almost like what you're asking for is a balanced, even board. One where 2 sides offer similar input & the onus isn't on one side to prop up the other, potentially leading that side to feeling like they probably deserve a bigger say...

If ONLY someone had suggested as much previously.
Click to expand...
Nope...I think this is where a lot of the confusion and arguments start.

The board of the wests tigers is not what people are talking about fundamentally, although it is ultimately affected.

It is 20 unelected debenture holders at HBG.

it's not more complicated than that.

If people could vote for their chosen Wests Ashfield candidates each year to make up the owners board, like every other club, they'd be happy.

Bad management can be punished and good management rewarded.
 
weststigers said:
Nope...I think this is where a lot of the confusion and arguments start.

The board of the wests tigers is not what people are talking about fundamentally, although it is ultimately affected.

It is 20 unelected debenture holders at HBG.

it's not more complicated than that.

If people could vote for their chosen Wests Ashfield candidates each year to make up the owners board, like every other club, they'd be happy.

Bad management can be punished and good management rewarded.
Click to expand...
Those debenture holders get 1 seat on the board.

They also finance both the Wests side of the JV & the Balmain juniors.

20 holders could be 50,000. It's still only 1 seat. If we got bought out by Laundy or whoever, they'd have a seat too. Pretty sure Nick Politis has a seat at the Roosters.

What you're arguing is the make-up of Wests Ashfield, who also hold 1 seat. That should be a different forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BZN
The Chad said:
Those debenture holders get 1 seat on the board.

They also finance both the Wests side of the JV & the Balmain juniors.

20 holders could be 50,000. It's still only 1 seat. If we got bought out by Laundy or whoever, they'd have a seat too. Pretty sure Nick Politis has a seat at the Roosters.

What you're arguing is the make-up of Wests Ashfield, who also hold 1 seat. That should be a different forum.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheEnz said:
They will pump up his $, extend him and think that will take the heat off them and maybe lock bula and jerome in. What the reality will be is that they will add performance clauses that look achieveable and once the dust settles they will white ant him with shit decisions and leaks to the media so he fails and they punt him.
Click to expand...
I know right because our recent history with people under contract is so reliable.
 
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​

​

Nic Negrepontis

[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
​
Page 1
Page 2
Page 4


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]
 
Last edited:
weststigers said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Love
Reactions: BZN
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 342 (members: 10, guests: 332)
Back
Top