Will you be attending the Save the Wests Tigers March?

Will you be attending the Save the Wests Tigers rally?

  • Yes, I care about the future of Wests Tigers

    Votes: 68 35.1%

  • No, it's just not possible for me to get there but I would if I could

    Votes: 120 61.9%

  • No, I support Wests Magpies not Wests Tigers

    Votes: 2 1.0%

  • No, I don't care about the future of the Wests Tigers

    Votes: 4 2.1%
  • Total voters
    194
Status
Not open for further replies.
LiverpoolTiger said:
You seem to make many assumptions.

Apparently they were at all meetings and everything was unanimous so it is reasonable to deduce that Shane or a sub committee withheld information.

Vlandys actions seem to show that they had cause but acted with unnecessary haste.

Pop reckons off ramps were left open.

Charlie and Shane may be in error.
Click to expand...
Geez you're gullible and naive.

And yes it's standard for board meetings that everyone is invited, a quorum reached etc
 
The Chad said:
That's skipped ahead a few steps to that point. I think it's potentially one of the roots of the problem.

Now there are rallies to remove them.

I think what Viscous is suggesting is, if they are continually 'disrespected' in their eyes, they might just stop propping up the Balmain side of things all together. They are not under any obligation to do so.

Balmain, and the poor governance that got them into the position that only gives them a token 10% share gifted to them to maintain a JV status- are not being criticised at all for getting the Wests Tigers club into a position where Wests/HBG have the opportunity to have such a large controlling stake.
Click to expand...
Balmain are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

This is not a Balmain v Magpies argue despite how hard you are trying to frame it as one.
 
The Chad said:
I get that mate- but because of the way the club is set up, it's not as simple as "everything is Wests Tigers".

In theory, it should be.

But because 1 side of the JV is now propping up the other side, there's now a business/financial aspect to be considered- because it's not longer an even split on responsibilities.

And when the larger contributor feels like they need to take more control of the Wests Tigers board because they feel deals (business deals) are being done without enough consultation with the lead financier & major share holder- there's push back from fans of the JV.

Fans are the unlucky victims.

We are only in this position because one of the partners in the marriage isn't paying their share of the child support. So the one doing the paying wants more say in where the kids go to school as a result.
Click to expand...

They can remove Balmain completely …I couldn’t care in the slightest …

however …i don’t think arguments around the board and people not paying their share is addressing my questions around the funding of these kids .. Wests have been funding these costs for years … and I assume there is a benefit to them as owner of the Wests Tigers …it’s not an act of charity right?
 
hammertime said:
Because the money that your talking about, isn't the directors money. Your collecting it from members in croyden and markets (and soon rozelle!) who are parents or family who like to see the money go into local leagues clubs.

You compared it to Darcy or Blocker putting their hands in their pockets.

This is what people can't get through their thick heads. It's a members club, the directors do not own it. They are there for the communities they serve.
Click to expand...
That’s correct,
I have been a member of Wests Ashfield for over 30 years, so why would I expect them to put some of their members money into funding Balmain junior reps for the good of Wests Tigers if a large portion of Wests Tigers fans do not appreciate it ?
 
Vicious said:
Because if they continue to be made out to be villains who dont like the Balmain side of the merger, don’t care, don’t spend any money to assist Wests Tigers and don’t do anything to help,
If thst ideology doesn’t change, Why would they bother to keep funding teams they are not obliged to fund, but only do it for the good of Wests Tigers ?
Click to expand...
Who has said they don't like the Balmain side of the merger? No one is supporting Balmain.
 
Vicious said:
They quite obviously only fund the Balmain junior reps to do the right thing by Wests Tigers, surely you understand that ?
Click to expand...

That’s not what I’m arguing …You are putting forward a case to remove the funding …because they are being criticised by third parties …. This is what I don’t understand ..
 
Tom Shines said:
They can remove Balmain completely …I couldn’t care in the slightest …

however …i don’t think arguments around the board and people not paying their share is addressing my questions around the funding of these kids .. Wests have been these costs for years … and I assume there is a benefit to them as owner of the Wests Tigers …it’s not an act of charity right?
Click to expand...
To your point- I think you're right. It would seem against the best interests of the club to not fund Tigers junior development.
 
LiverpoolTiger said:
You seem to make many assumptions.

Apparently they were at all meetings and everything was unanimous so it is reasonable to deduce that Shane or a sub committee withheld information.

Vlandys actions seem to show that they had cause but acted with unnecessary haste.

Pop reckons off ramps were left open.

Charlie and Shane may be in error.
Click to expand...
So why remove the independent directors and tarnish their professional reputations?
 
Vicious said:
That’s correct,
I have been a member of Wests Ashfield for over 30 years, so why would I expect them to put some of their members money into funding Balmain junior reps for the good of Wests Tigers if a large portion of Wests Tigers fans do not appreciate it ?
Click to expand...
I am too. It's not your money. You realise all the clubs are in heavy balmain territory?

Misleading advertising mate if you use the branding to collect the cash. You should start there. Remove that, I suspect the WT logo too given its jointly owned. Then wait a few years, then you might be able to cut the junior league funding without lawsuits.

The new rozelle club would need to be the magpies
 
cochise said:
Balmain are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

This is not a Balmain v Magpies argue despite how hard you are trying to frame it as one.
Click to expand...
I still feel it's a balance argument.

I like Big Red's suggestion from earlier- 10% to each JV, 80% controlled by a Third party brought in from elsewhere.

Removes any reliance on HBG & Wests Magpies for the running of the Wests Tigers club.
 
The Chad said:
I still feel it's a balance argument.

I like Big Red's suggestion from earlier- 10% to each JV, 80% controlled by a Third party brought in from elsewhere.

Removes any reliance on HBG & Wests Magpies for the running of the Wests Tigers club.
Click to expand...

Just get rid of Balmain completely … that’s my argument …
 
cochise said:
Who has said they don't like the Balmain side of the merger? No one is supporting Balmain.
Click to expand...
Maybe not you, but it’s been said quite often in the media.
Balmain junior reps are a very valued and important part of Wests Tigers pathways, surely you agree with that ?
That being the case the money for them being funded by Wests Ashfield is very important o Wests Tigers.
Based on Fallah’s comments seen on this thread tonight, it sounds like that funding could come under question if a large portion of Wests Tigers fans continue to try and remove them, without trying to understand them and perhaps work with them.
Who do we think will fund the Balmain junior reps if they do remove the funding due to feeling disrespected ?
 
Vicious said:
The funding keeps the Balmain junior reps alive, do you not understand that ?
You better than anyone should understand how important it is for the Balmain junior reps to continue.
But you want to totally remove the same people that find the teams you support and enjoy watching play each season.
Yes you can be unhappy with a lot of decisions they make, but to say they don’t care, don’t do anything to help and need to be removed without being given an opportunity to make better decisions and do things better is harsh when you know they do things that are help and are in the best interests of Wests Tigers such as funding the Balmain junior reps.
Click to expand...
A review they commissioned found serious governance issues and made a list of recommendations including an independently majority board makeup.

After the majority of these recommendations were implemented the club started to show signs of improvement across a number of indicators for the first time in a decade.

The HBG then decided to reverse all the recommendations and go back to a structure that was found to be poor governance in the initial review.

It is pretty obvious why Wests Tigers fans are taking the action they are.
 
Tom Shines said:
That’s not what I’m arguing …You are putting forward a case to remove the funding …because they are being criticised by third parties …. This is what I don’t understand ..
Click to expand...
Not doing anything worthwhile for Wests Tigers is part of the criticism being directed towards them.
Obviously funding the Balmain junior reps is something very worthwhile and valuable for Wests Tigers as they are an important part of Wests Tigers pathways.
 
The Chad said:
Of the funding that does not come from NRL grants & sponsorship is what I, rather poorly, suggested.

Of the 2 JV clubs, Wests contributes significantly more.
Click to expand...
$1.5-1.7M is not funding an NRL team. Merch sales would bring in more, especially if we were successful.
 
Vicious said:
That’s correct,
I have been a member of Wests Ashfield for over 30 years, so why would I expect them to put some of their members money into funding Balmain junior reps for the good of Wests Tigers if a large portion of Wests Tigers fans do not appreciate it ?
Click to expand...
Because they are a non for profit and it's their charter to fund sport, especially Rugby League in their local community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 577 (members: 2, guests: 575)
Back
Top