HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

From the same article, but without the selective representation-

“Now, there’s an agreement between Wests Tigers and Holman Barnes Group where certain decisions that are made need to come back to the owner for approval. That simply hasn’t been happening.
And I can give an example of that – the stadium policy around Leichhardt Oval. So the announcement was that Leichhardt Oval would be the home of Wests Tigers for the next 15 years. The Holman Barnes Group board only found out about that with 16,000 other fans at Leichhardt Oval. Which is really bad for business, and it’s quite embarrassing really ...

As the majority owners, Holman Barnes Group is well within its rights to take back control of the board if there are concerns with governance. In order to take back control and have the ability to reconstitute the board, the only lever the Holman Barnes Group had to pull was to remove the four independent board members. The work done by the majority of the independent board members has been commendable, and we are in talks with some of those members as we work through what the new board looks like
You talked about a lack of communication – and obviously the four independent directors are no longer there – what responsibility does Shane Richardson bear for that?
DP: “
I think some of the decisions that were made, that should have come to the Holman Barnes Group for approval, certainly didn’t happen. And that’s coming from the CEO and the board.”
Is there anything in the [ownership] agreement whereby certain actions taken by the football club have to come back to you either for ratification or to inform you of what’s going on?

DP: That’s correct. In the agreement, there is a threshold limit that if transactions – let’s say transactions above a certain limit – need to come back to Holman Barnes Group for approval.”
The quotes you add fly in the face of reality for the CEO - Richardson had been talking about the stadium plan publicly and there were HBG reps on the same board that made these decisions. It is about having majority representation as Paton himself said because they didn't like the decisions that were being passed under the board structure of 4 independents and a minority voice.

Not sure where your confusion lies, but most, if not all, are clear on why this all happened based on comments made by the people involved.
 
From the same article, but without the selective representation-

“Now, there’s an agreement between Wests Tigers and Holman Barnes Group where certain decisions that are made need to come back to the owner for approval. That simply hasn’t been happening.
And I can give an example of that – the stadium policy around Leichhardt Oval. So the announcement was that Leichhardt Oval would be the home of Wests Tigers for the next 15 years. The Holman Barnes Group board only found out about that with 16,000 other fans at Leichhardt Oval. Which is really bad for business, and it’s quite embarrassing really ...

As the majority owners, Holman Barnes Group is well within its rights to take back control of the board if there are concerns with governance. In order to take back control and have the ability to reconstitute the board, the only lever the Holman Barnes Group had to pull was to remove the four independent board members. The work done by the majority of the independent board members has been commendable, and we are in talks with some of those members as we work through what the new board looks like
You talked about a lack of communication – and obviously the four independent directors are no longer there – what responsibility does Shane Richardson bear for that?
DP: “
I think some of the decisions that were made, that should have come to the Holman Barnes Group for approval, certainly didn’t happen. And that’s coming from the CEO and the board.”
Is there anything in the [ownership] agreement whereby certain actions taken by the football club have to come back to you either for ratification or to inform you of what’s going on?

DP: That’s correct. In the agreement, there is a threshold limit that if transactions – let’s say transactions above a certain limit – need to come back to Holman Barnes Group for approval.”
The decisions they appear to be upset about all relate to the Balmain Tigers side of the JV. Leichardt Oval. Wests tigers in the juniors. Too much orange in the jersey.

So even when it appears they may have a leg to stand on, it raises more questions about the magpie agenda we keep hearing about from former executives and board members.
 
The decisions they appear to be upset about all relate to the Balmain Tigers side of the JV. Leichardt Oval. Wests tigers in the juniors. Too much orange in the jersey.

So even when it appears they may have a leg to stand on, it raises more questions about the magpie agenda we keep hearing about from former executives and board members.
exactly
 
HBG not knowing about the 15 year Leichhardt plan is solely on Denny B , he is on both boards and top spot at HBG , he should have gone to them and told them , this is what has been done and it will be coming out on X date , if Richo new he didn’t have to run to the HBG board on this issue he would 100% not go to them as they are clearly just not up to it and have a bias against all things Balmain
" a bias against all things Balmain " ?????!!!!! Really ?
Let me paraphrase The Judean People's Front- Monty Python skit that describes this oh so beautifully.
"So apart from Roads, sanitation, irrigation, medicine and the aquaduct, what have the bloody Romans ever done for us ?"
 
And this outstanding HBG board have proven over a number of years that they are incapable of running a football club.
But that’s beside the point. They’re all nice guys. Such a pity they do illogical stuff like sack independent board members, then rehire them days later. Really nice guys though. Actually, three of those really nice guys got suspended for having a different view.
 
The decisions they appear to be upset about all relate to the Balmain Tigers side of the JV. Leichardt Oval. Wests tigers in the juniors. Too much orange in the jersey.

So even when it appears they may have a leg to stand on, it raises more questions about the magpie agenda we keep hearing about from former executives and board members.
Hopefully Mielecamp brings Wests tigers into KOE and the juniors. it’s just silly now
 
" a bias against all things Balmain " ?????!!!!! Really ?
Let me paraphrase The Judean People's Front- Monty Python skit that describes this oh so beautifully.
"So apart from Roads, sanitation, irrigation, medicine and the aquaduct, what have the bloody Romans ever done for us ?"
I wouldn’t think that 20 guys with a smile and $100 have given us an advanced civilisation.
 
" a bias against all things Balmain " ?????!!!!! Really ?
Let me paraphrase The Judean People's Front- Monty Python skit that describes this oh so beautifully.
"So apart from Roads, sanitation, irrigation, medicine and the aquaduct, what have the bloody Romans ever done for us ?"
Are you saying that’s obvious ? Or that people should be grateful for all that HBG have done ? I don’t really get the reference of o this situation . Sorry . Maybe I’m slow , can you explain the joke please ? I get the Monty python reference re. The life of Bryan . Just not how that applies to HBG.
 
Nobody gives a rats about the rumours that came before his work at the club, he did good things for the Tigers with his involvement in the review that bought about welcomed change.

Then the rats nest ruined it all and we won't be convinced otherwise.
They weren't rumours - they were facts. He was in charge of Opal Aged Care when a lot of bad shit went down. As the managing Director he either didn't know about it or he turned a blind eye. Hardly the qualities of someone i would want on a board of the club.
 
The decisions they appear to be upset about all relate to the Balmain Tigers side of the JV. Leichardt Oval. Wests tigers in the juniors. Too much orange in the jersey.

So even when it appears they may have a leg to stand on, it raises more questions about the magpie agenda we keep hearing about from former executives and board members.
Thats just your take on the whole matter - no one on here actually knows what went down or what set HBG off on their stupid decision.
 
that does work both ways you know.
Well yeah...that's what my post implied. Why did you write this? To be heard?

it's ok. We hear you. We acknowledge you. You are important and you are special. And most importantly, your intelligence exceeds those around you. Your talents are wasted here. Humanity needs you. Thank you.
 
Thats just your take on the whole matter - no one on here actually knows what went down or what set HBG off on their stupid decision.
I said "appear to be" twice in the statement you've quoted... I thought that made it pretty clear it was my opinion
 
Are you saying that’s obvious ? Or that people should be grateful for all that HBG have done ? I don’t really get the reference of o this situation . Sorry . Maybe I’m slow , can you explain the joke please ? I get the Monty python reference re. The life of Bryan . Just not how that applies to HBG.
More that Wests, Ashfield, HBG or whoever it was . . were not "biased against all things Balmain"
They tipped in a lot of cash to pay Balmain's debts, etc. Hardly biased against Balmain.
Interesting thought on people being grateful . . . . I guess that if someone has paid your debts and pays your keep . . . unless you're an obnoxious and arrogant arsehole you'd have be grateful to some extent ?
Like, if my brother took to gambling or whatever, and lost his house, owed $200k on top . . . and his wife left him . . . and I put him up in my granny flat rent free, paid off his $200k, and gave him $500 a week till he got on his feet . . . I wouldn't need him to build a statue of me, but I'd sure as hell be pissed if I heard he was bad mouthing me to his mates.
 
More that Wests, Ashfield, HBG or whoever it was . . were not "biased against all things Balmain"
They tipped in a lot of cash to pay Balmain's debts, etc. Hardly biased against Balmain.
Interesting thought on people being grateful . . . . I guess that if someone has paid your debts and pays your keep . . . unless you're an obnoxious and arrogant arsehole you'd have be grateful to some extent ?
Like, if my brother took to gambling or whatever, and lost his house, owed $200k on top . . . and his wife left him . . . and I put him up in my granny flat rent free, paid off his $200k, and gave him $500 a week till he got on his feet . . . I wouldn't need him to build a statue of me, but I'd sure as hell be pissed if I heard he was bad mouthing me to his mates.
??? That logic doesn’t make any real sense though in reality . Because there were a bunch of consortiums willing to take on the debt and take over the asset of Balmain tigers, with the future being the leagues club in rozelle . As that’s a gold mine most people wanted . Especially th development above it . Obviously the most trust worthy was wests Ashfield.
To use your family logic as far as I’m aware , imagine your junkie son (Elias , pissed all your funds up the wall , now you’re looking around for help to get you out of the whole he’s created , so you’re thinking bank loans , bankruptcy , external investors in your company etc. But your brother comes along says he will wipe the debt , merge your company into his own ,and give you 10% of the ownership afterwards . It seems like a good deal right?
I mean sure . But now your brother at every turn says he owns the asset , you don’t have a say , even though he said you would , and you should be grateful he bailed you out . But he says it all the time . Every time you have a fight , every Christmas part and birthday at some point he brings up the fact he had to bail you and your junkie son out . Would you not be resentful , and regretful that you made that choice.
And then worst of all . Your once thriving customer base , and legacy has been diminished by his ineptitude at running that business , that this thing you loved and nurtured is now a pale impression of what it once was . Would you not be resentful ? Regretful? I mean you’d curse your junkie son for starters , but he’s your boy so you love him
Unconditionally even though he breaks your heart all the time . But your brother. Would you not start to think he took advantage of me at my lowest . Like I said resentful .
I’m not saying this hypothetical analogy is how it is. And it’s definitely not how I personally feel . (whilst Balmain fairly or unfairly was considered the JV partner with the more prestige , they were busy running thier club in the toilet long before SL and the eventual merger happened) , but I’m just offering a counter argument to the in my opinion , stupid , and low IQ argument , that people should be grateful and STFU , because a favour was done .
For me I don’t do favours by half . I don’t believe in conditional love / favours . I do something for a mate or family , I’m not keeping count . I don’t want to be reimbursed , and if you want to talk shit about me after the fact like I’m a chump , well that’s on you . I’ll just brush you and chalk the whole experience up to learning . But this is business we are talking about . And like I said the favour is implied that it was the only way forward . Which is simply not true there were many pigs trying to eat at the trough . They just chose the familiar pig of Wests Ashfield .
 

Latest posts

Back
Top