HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

The Chad said:
Understand that. But is that scenario POSSIBLE?

Could be that the 2 appointed HBG reps thought "yep, good idea" took it back to HBG & their majority was "nope, bad idea" but the motion was passed.

Remembering that part of the structure was HBG were to be consulted on financial matters.

That would make the 2 HBG board members look like they messed up.

But it could ALSO explain the HBG stance.
Click to expand...
So in that situation, why would you sack the independent directors but leave the 2 HBG appointed directors who acted on your behalf incorrectly?
 
cochise said:
So in that situation, why would you sack the independent directors but leave the 2 HBG appointed directors who acted on your behalf incorrectly?
Click to expand...
We don't know the final make-up of the board yet though. Why sack them? I don't want to speculate on wrong doing. But maybe HBG feel railroaded by decisions being pushed through?

Is that situation POSSIBLE?
 
cochise said:
So without any clarity can you blame fans for taking action?
Click to expand...
I think that, given that they have offered a timeline, and that nobody knows what the plan is- action could very well look like going off too early.

To point- in my opinion, the Tigers now have a superior person in the CEO role.

What is to say that the new Tigers board isn't better?

If it's not? Go to town.
 
The Chad said:
We don't know the final make-up of the board yet though. Why sack them? I don't want to speculate on wrong doing. But maybe HBG feel railroaded by decisions being pushed through?

Is that situation POSSIBLE?
Click to expand...
Then they needed better representatives, they left their representatives in place until one of them got themselves in further trouble.
 
The Chad said:
I think that, given that they have offered a timeline, and that nobody knows what the plan is- action could very well look like going off too early.

To point- in my opinion, the Tigers now have a superior person in the CEO role.

What is to say that the new Tigers board isn't better?

If it's not? Go to town.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I support Shaun in his role but I will take the guy with 30 years experience and a history of turning poor performing clubs around.

I think Shaun is our second best option though.
 
The Chad said:
That is quite possible. I think I remember that too.

PVL could be a master negotiator?
Click to expand...
More than a master negotiator. The commission issues the NRL licence and own the Wests Tigers name. I am pretty sure HBG were told in no uncertain terms what would happen if they did not take the independent board members back. The only concession PVL made was that HBG could have the majority on the Wests Tigers board. Which IMO was an error.
 
The Chad said:
At the risk of repeating myself & the likes of yourself rolling your eyes...

Maybe.

But we don't know why they were reappointed. What was discussed between PVL, HBG & O'Farrell COULD be that HBG were told they must take Barry back like naughty little boys.

Or.

PVL & O'Farrell discussed the situation with HBG, and HBG felt that with other staff members moving on, there was a path forward with Barry as chair.
Click to expand...
Not really wanting to wade into the debate - but fact from BOF at the members meeting with the CEO - there is only one reason he is back at WT - PVL. He did not elaborate any further but you can deduce from this that it wasn't HBG that got BOF back on board - extrapolate that out as you see fit.
 
Jolls said:
Not really wanting to wade into the debate - but fact from BOF at the members meeting with the CEO - there is only one reason he is back at WT - PVL. He did not elaborate any further but you can deduce from this that it wasn't HBG that got BOF back on board - extrapolate that out as you see fit.
Click to expand...
Good old fashion bat phone direct line straight to PVL.
 
Tucker said:
I did reply to this but one of the mods got their undies twisted as per usual and deleted it.
I find it funny how dismissive a person can be of another’s views when not knowing them. Why isn’t this my thing? I’ve run a successful business for many years. I continue to do so. You speak like you know me, however I wasn’t even really aware you existed on here as a regular poster until somewhere around the seasons end. I have no beef as I basically am unaware of you.

You stated improvements = success. To me improvement isn’t success unless it delivers tangible outcomes that can be measured against defined goals and we aren’t privy to that exact detail. From the outside looking in, there were some certain improvements financially. I disagree leadership was improved, in fact our leadership caused some of the drama amongst the group.
In 2025 the Tigers failed where it matters most - results and execution.
Poor on-field performance, ongoing instability off it, and fixes to problems that never should’ve existed don’t equal a successful season for mine., moreso a missed opportunity.
A “positive trajectory” is just permission to keep going — not a tick of achievement. It’s a good start and I don’t see why it can’t be extended and expanded upon this year.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the response, I wasn’t trying to be dismissive. You posted something earlier along the lines that you think it’s a ridiculous thread and I genuinely thought you weren’t interested in discussing it.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about improvement being an indicator of success.

I agree that there were areas where we improved but likely underperformed against short term targets. However, it’s also likely that the improvements contributed to long term success through incremental gains.

This approach starts slow but compounds over time and results in steady and sustained growth rather than the boom and bust of fast rebuilds.
 
mike said:
More than a master negotiator. The commission issues the NRL licence and own the Wests Tigers name. I am pretty sure HBG were told in no uncertain terms what would happen if they did not take the independent board members back. The only concession PVL made was that HBG could have the majority on the Wests Tigers board. Which IMO was an error.
Click to expand...
How does that work? You got to take back the independents but you can also have a majority on the board. Wouldn't they need to remove independents to have a majority?
 
mike said:
More than a master negotiator. The commission issues the NRL licence and own the Wests Tigers name. I am pretty sure HBG were told in no uncertain terms what would happen if they did not take the independent board members back. The only concession PVL made was that HBG could have the majority on the Wests Tigers board. Which IMO was an error.
Click to expand...
Strange negotiating tactic.

Yes- you are completely wrong. You must take back the independents.

However, you know what? Why don't you have control from now on instead?


With Jolls comment front & centre of mind- PVL could have negotiated with HBG to back down & take O'Farrell back. But maybe not with the big stick mentality most want to believe.

Like I've suggested before- I could believe a situation where HBG agreed to taking O'Farrell back due to other circumstances having played out.

This belief that PVL has HBG shaking in their boots does not play in line with giving them control of the Wests Tigers board.

Maybe I'm wrong. Don't know.
 
cochise said:
Even if that is the scenario, it doesn't justify there processes of damaging the reputation of board members.

This is also one incidence of the HBG dismissing board members in the last 18 months across their group.

A well functioning organisation doesn't dismiss 8 board members in 18 months.
Click to expand...
No one was complaining last time around though. Dismissing the board that included Hagi and also Pascoe was roundly applauded.
So the action seems acceptable.....if you agree with who got punted.
 
The Chad said:
Understand that. But is that scenario POSSIBLE?

Could be that the 2 appointed HBG reps thought "yep, good idea" took it back to HBG & their majority was "nope, bad idea" but the motion was passed.

Remembering that part of the structure was HBG were to be consulted on financial matters.

That would make the 2 HBG board members look like they messed up.

But it could ALSO explain the HBG stance.
Click to expand...
The biggest question that is never answered in all your word salad is this:

Let's concede for a moment that HBG had a point and were totally correct that there was a lack of communication on major financial matters.

Barry was the Chair of WT. It is the chairman's responsibility to report back to the HBG board.

Why were the other 3 board members sacked?

Are they suggesting that 3 board members were very communicative with HBG, but the 4 independent board members weren't?

The story doesn't match reality. The actions don't match the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 334 (members: 2, guests: 332)
Back
Top