supercoach
Well-known member
They can continue to stuff up but like in the past they are answerable to nobody. They are like a secret society that are probably laughing at our posts
HBG, Independent Directors Sacked
- Thread starter BlackWhiteGold
- Start date
gallagher
Well-known member
Yes they do. You have the right to run something you own.
supercoach
Well-known member
They only have success with the above because the are geographically located in an area of Sydney where a large portion of the population loves the one armed bandits and are willing to throw lots of money at them.
mike
Well-known member
Yeah, you don’t need much business acumen to run a poker machine club.
TheEnz
Well-known member
| Ownership Model | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Member-Owned | Members elect boards; community-driven governance | Traditional Sydney clubs |
| Privately Owned | Owned by individuals/corporations | Storm, Warriors, Titans |
| Publicly Listed | Shares traded on stock exchange | Brisbane Broncos |
| Leagues Club-Owned (NFP) | Owned by not‑for‑profit leagues clubs | Sharks, Cowboys, Eels |
| Hybrid Ownership | Mix of private and member/leagues club ownership | Rabbitohs, Dragons |
| Government/ARLC Ownership | Rare special-purpose ownership | PNG Chiefs |
These clubs are owned collectively by their financial members, who typically have voting rights and influence over governance.
Members elect boards and help guide club direction.
This model reflects the historical roots of rugby league as a community-based sport.
Source: Member-owned clubs are described as a primary NRL ownership model.
2. Privately Owned Clubs
Clubs are owned by individuals, corporations, or investment groups. These owners provide capital, strategic direction, and governance.
Examples include:
Melbourne Storm – owned by private investors.
New Zealand Warriors – owned by Autex Industries.
3. Publicly Listed Clubs
A rare model in Australian sport. Shares in the club are traded on the stock market, allowing public investment.
Example:
Brisbane Broncos, the only NRL club listed on the ASX.
4. Leagues Club-Owned (Not-for-Profit Ownership)
Many traditional NRL clubs are owned by large registered Leagues Clubs—hospitality/gaming venues that reinvest profits into sports operations.
Characteristics:
Clubs operate on a not‑for‑profit basis.
Revenue comes from gaming, hospitality, and membership rather than private equity.
Examples:
Cronulla‑Sutherland Sharks
North Queensland Cowboys
Parramatta Eels
5. Hybrid Ownership Models
A mix of private ownership and member/club ownership.
Examples include:
South Sydney Rabbitohs → 75% privately owned (Crowe/Packer/M Cannon‑Brookes group), 25% member-owned.
St George Illawarra Dragons → 50% WIN Corporation, 50% St George Leagues Club.
6. Government or Commission-Linked Ownership (Rare)
Some expansion clubs or special cases may involve ownership stakes by governing bodies.
Example:
Papua New Guinea Chiefs – jointly owned by the ARLC and Australian Government.
Last edited:
My understanding is that none of the individuals that make the decisions own anything Gal.
They are not private investors - they are the beneficiaries of the debenture system that gives them power and appears to be factional not merit based - given the bloodshed in recent times.
TheEnz
Well-known member
In most cases other than a not for profit ownership, yes in theory they could draw a profit and pay it out, however I expect the NRL funding can only be spent on specific things and not taken out as profit. In relation to the HBG ownership, i believe their charter includes a dividend paid to debenture holders....its likely pretty insignificant and a percent of their investment so purely a symbolic payment and the rest is either paid as a salary to board members (again probably not a significant amount) maybe $10k - 30K at most. The rest would need to be re-invested in the club thru NRL, Junior comps, community activities, renovations, new asset purchases etc...
Jolls
Well-known member
To take this one step further - we are governed by the club'c constitution which in short says - give back to the community and promote Rugby League in the region. We aren't a not for profit but HBG give more back to members than it does to Wests Tigers.
Shaun Meilekamp hit the nail on the head when he discussed this issue at the members forum. The board needs to change the thinking of HBG. They have to go from giving the minimal they can to keep the club running to being happy kicking in $10M and asking how they can do more.
This is about changing attitudes from us and them to we! Win that battle and the rest falls into place. The problem, as I see it, is that over the years some members of the boards have been all about me.
Using the same logic, if the nrl see someone ruining the brand that they own, they can also do as they please.. thats our saving grace
I think he is referring to the HBG organisation, not individual
hank37w
Well-known member
To my way of thinking we got shafted when they ditched the plans to turn Olympic Park/Accor into a rectangular ground with the curtaining to reduce it to around a 30k capacity or so when required for club games.
That could have been a good home ground fairly central for everyone with a couple of games a year at Leichhardt and Cambo.
Would have been perfect with it's location pretty much in the centre of Sydney with good transport links, close to Concord and all the Wests clubs, and not really associated with any one club as being their sole home ground like Parramatta and Alliance are.
Instead they built the Roorters an extremely expensive home ground that has major drainage issues and that the Roorters scum are reluctant to share with anyone else, and in the meantime Olympic Park remains a cavern that is suited to a couple of major events a year plus a couple of games that the Dogs manage to pack out by offering $10 tickets to their filthy rabble and still manage to make money on the day.
gallagher
Well-known member
That's true, I was referring to HBG owning the club and wanting to run it.
Which makes the individuals expendable if they consistently fail.
Not the case for private ownership
gallagher
Well-known member
In extreme circumstances they could. I think they appointed board members at Parra when they were cheating the cap. They didn't take the license back though.
I don't think we are any where near the stage where the NRL want to step in
Idk. Its been dogs breakfast for a while now.
Im curious about your comments re 3 stadiums in Sydney
What would you have kept/left out?
gallagher
Well-known member
I would have been at Homebush fulltime 20 years ago, then CommBank. Campbo and LO councils to improve their stadiums before we go back.
You'd cop flack for a year or so then everyone would have just moved on like dogs and souffs fans.
We'd be a better funded club and a more united fan base IMO.
weststigers
Well-known member
That still would not make it a 4 from 7 independent board. Have they not increased board members to 9?
All this is to my point.
Even if they all came back, we will have 5 non-independent against 4.
That is not "true to the review"
The Chad
Well-known member
As an idea..
The majority vote on here is to remove HBG.
Let's, for arguments sake, say that HBG are guilty of poor management.
That said, they can be commended for their continued investment in not ONLY Wests Tigers, but Wests Ashfield & BJRLC as well. They don't NEED to invest into Balmain- they chose to, for whatever reason you want to believe.
I made a vague point eons ago & was quickly accused of blaming Balmain...but I'll bring up a point/suggestion again.
The REAL problem at Wests Tigers, as I see it, isn't HBG. It's that HBG (or anyone else- it could have been the other way around) has 90% majority ownership. This is a joint venture with only one side of the venture contributing.
In any business, the bigger contributor will expect bigger say.
There's been a few on here suggest we would be better off bought out by someone new- Laundy was suggested a few times.
That all leads to removing HBG. Some fans want HBG out regardless of new owners or not- funding takes care of itself apparently.
Why has NOBODY suggested that Balmain requires someone to buy it out, and then contribute equal parts to what Wests/HBG contribute to Wests Tigers?
If both JV clubs were to contribute the same amount (or even similar), you could have equal representation from BOTH clubs on the Wests Tigers board. You then get independents to be the difference in voting- could be 1, 3, 5...however many you want to add.
The idea that "HBG out" solves everything assumes that whoever takes over isn't going to have exactly the same 'me first' agenda you accuse HBG of having.
I don't want HBG out. I think they should be encouraged to do more. I also think they shouldn't be in a position to carry the can for Wests Tigers. Any individual (or group) that owns a majority of any board is in a position to manipulate the state of play in their favour.
Fans want HBG out.
I want Balmain in.
PVL, Darcy Do-Little, the CEO, the fans...instead of throwing out what we have, instead focus on getting someone else to buy in. Balmain is ripe for taking over, investing in the juniors, the leagues club- according to a few, running a pokies club is simple, right?
That way, Wests Tigers can have a fair, even board made up of two clubs sharing responsibilities & costs & funding etc.
The majority vote on here is to remove HBG.
Let's, for arguments sake, say that HBG are guilty of poor management.
That said, they can be commended for their continued investment in not ONLY Wests Tigers, but Wests Ashfield & BJRLC as well. They don't NEED to invest into Balmain- they chose to, for whatever reason you want to believe.
I made a vague point eons ago & was quickly accused of blaming Balmain...but I'll bring up a point/suggestion again.
The REAL problem at Wests Tigers, as I see it, isn't HBG. It's that HBG (or anyone else- it could have been the other way around) has 90% majority ownership. This is a joint venture with only one side of the venture contributing.
In any business, the bigger contributor will expect bigger say.
There's been a few on here suggest we would be better off bought out by someone new- Laundy was suggested a few times.
That all leads to removing HBG. Some fans want HBG out regardless of new owners or not- funding takes care of itself apparently.
Why has NOBODY suggested that Balmain requires someone to buy it out, and then contribute equal parts to what Wests/HBG contribute to Wests Tigers?
If both JV clubs were to contribute the same amount (or even similar), you could have equal representation from BOTH clubs on the Wests Tigers board. You then get independents to be the difference in voting- could be 1, 3, 5...however many you want to add.
The idea that "HBG out" solves everything assumes that whoever takes over isn't going to have exactly the same 'me first' agenda you accuse HBG of having.
I don't want HBG out. I think they should be encouraged to do more. I also think they shouldn't be in a position to carry the can for Wests Tigers. Any individual (or group) that owns a majority of any board is in a position to manipulate the state of play in their favour.
Fans want HBG out.
I want Balmain in.
PVL, Darcy Do-Little, the CEO, the fans...instead of throwing out what we have, instead focus on getting someone else to buy in. Balmain is ripe for taking over, investing in the juniors, the leagues club- according to a few, running a pokies club is simple, right?
That way, Wests Tigers can have a fair, even board made up of two clubs sharing responsibilities & costs & funding etc.
cochise
Well-known member
Balmain are irrelevant to the discussion, they ran their club into the ground so I don't want them anywhere near the Wests Tigers.
