weststigers
Well-known member
Balmain is irrelevant to this discussion. They have a minority share and they have always had a minority share. That is not the point.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.
Wests Ashfield are not “owed” anything by Wests Tigers. They owe the community. They operate under a governance structure that does not mirror any other NRL club and that lack of accountability has caused enormous instability for us. Years of indecision, infighting and contradictory leadership all trace back to a board that answers to no one.
It is not about how 20 debenture holders feel. They are not elected and they do not represent anyone. A structure that concentrates power in the hands of a small, unelected group invites personal agendas that do not align with the expectations of the broader membership.
You only need to look at the stream of awful decisions to see that. The outrage here, the fact that people are giving up their weekend to protest, the involvement of the mayor, the NRL stepping in, and the media calling it out. These are not fringe reactions. This is widespread and consistent across different groups.
Are all of them wrong? Are we all misunderstanding the situation in the exact same way? Or is it more likely that the governance model is fundamentally broken and people are finally reacting to something that has been a powderkeg for years?