cochise
Well-known member
Recording on Friday, will have Shaun hopefully next week.
HBG, Independent Directors Sacked
- Thread starter BlackWhiteGold
- Start date
They decided to oust the independent directors. Thats enough wrong doing in my book to say see ya!
That really surprises me.
I cant understand why any Wests Tigers supporter would also choose to support HBG given their history, unless they are good mates with board members or are HBG members themselves.
Are their pokies or meat tray raffles extra good?
hank37w
Well-known member
The way the HBG Board have been acting they may very well lose the Wests Tigers Licence and V'Landys could grant the licence to an entity outside of Sydney.
This could solve the problem of having too many NRL sides in Sydney and allow V'Landys to continue his expansion plans interstate, or into New Zealand.
This would then free up the junior areas currently held by the Wests Tigers for V'Landys to divided up between The Parra-sites and the Dogs giving the Dogs that increased geographic reach that they currently do not have.
Thanks Holman Barnes Group you need to be acknowledged for your service and dedication to the expansion of the game of Rugby League.
Go_You_Good_Things
Well-known member
The silence is deafening, cdinoz . . . you obviously are close to the workings at HBG.
I would like to think your researched and detailed efforts would be appreciated by all here.
But you sing an unpopular song, my friend.
We still dont know if the board were effective or not. The metrics could simply have been as a result of the actions of Richo and NOT the board. That was my point. There have been comments made that Richo wasnt consulting the board over the decisions he was making. HE was making. Not "consulting with the board" and then making a decision.
Again and this is only hearsay, but Richo apparently saw himself as a one man band. Now, no corporate organisation in the land will allow a senior exec to go off and make decisions without approvals, regardless of how succesfull those decisions turn out to be. CEO's cannot be left
PVL didnt reinstate them himself becuase of any perceived metrics. He forced the club to reinstate the board becuase HE felt due process had not been followed and breached NRL guidelines. Nothing to do with their abilities.
The likelihood of that happening is close to zero. The HGB board breached NRL guidelines. They didnt breach the NRL rules.
For a club to have their licence revoked would require a serious breach of financial, legal or governance. What HBG did was in my opinion a silly move to make. It wasnt serious enough to cause a warning of licence revocation.
hank37w
Well-known member
Just tell your mates to keep up the good work and see what happens. 🤣
They are the 90% share holders. They are entitled to appoint and remove directors as they see fit. But if they are going to do that, they need to have a valid reason.
I am assuming with PVL stepping in, he wasnt convinced they had justification
I was driving to the airport for a flight for work.
Its not that I am close to the workings of the HBG today, its well known and well broadcast here on other posts that my wife worked for Wests Ashfield for more than 15 years, ultimately as ended up as the marketing manager.
I should hate the organisation in the way she was treated and why she ultimately decided to leave the organisation.
Its very well known that under Simon Cook, and the later years too with Tim McAleer there was a significant culture of bullying. I know personally of 4 other managers who left the club due to that bullying culture.
It's also well known that I nearly came to blows with Simon on more than one occasion.
That culture whilst maybe not "supported" by TA and RW, was largely ignored because of the success of the leagues club. When the person DOING the bullying is asked to run the investigation INTO the bullying, you know what the end result is going to be.
That is the culture that was. Sadly after the passing of Mike Bailey, the factions in the board were apparent. When TA and RW were up for election, they both under Simons guidance allowed to use my wife's time to "campaign" for them, where she would call up intra clubs and voting blocks and help convince them to vote for TA and RW.
She did that becuase it was under the guidance of the CEO.
That faction has GONE. Their supporters on the board have largely GONE. Yes, some of the debenture holders may still hold those views. BUT those debenture holders wont ever see a board appointment.
The problem is, its very very obvious from reading who is on the "Magnificent 7" list, that these names have been suggested by TA and RW.
Thats where my connection lies to Wests Ashfield.
I hope that clears things up
Last edited:
Go_You_Good_Things
Well-known member
Well, you're more autonomous than I would have originally thought. Close enough to know what's going on, but not quite in the echelon of those doing the damage.
On the debenture holders . . . I recently ran into a bloke who's dad is/was a debenture holder. When I questioned the need for such a dinosaur method of governance . . . he was quick to defend the honour and need for the continuation of the debenture system. As you would expect, I guess.
And for the sake of clarity, not ONE of the current HBG board members has EVER been the subject of a Four Corners investigation into a company they have run.
(And let's not forget, the CEO of that company resigned almost immediately after the episode was broadcast....and was is named on the 7 proposed temporary board members)
(And let's not forget, the CEO of that company resigned almost immediately after the episode was broadcast....and was is named on the 7 proposed temporary board members)
To be fair. The debenture system which has been described as "antiquated" is no better or worse than all members being voted directly.
It's an absolutely red herring in my opinion which many supporters have cottoned onto because it's different. And they simply don't understand it.
It's certainly very unusual. But that doesn't mean it's bad
For a club to have their license revoked is as simple as not renewing it.
Don't toe the line - move on, That option is on the horizon for both hbg and the NRL
cochise
Well-known member
And investigations cleared him of any wrongdoing, it's easy to be honest and transparent mate.
cochise
Well-known member
It means that only 20 people have any real avenue to effect change at the club.
...and if the NRL did that without significant justification..? I can only imagine the legal fight.
...and if the NRL did that without significant justification..? I can only imagine the legal fight
And yet 2 voted members managed to gain so much influence that several of those 20 backed them up and supported them.
Funny that an investigation initiated by Opal and paid for by Opal, despite being "independent" found nothing wrong.
Yes, I am an absolute cynic
cochise
Well-known member
You can be a cynic without purposefully leaving out information. To leave out information is dishonest.
