Search results

Sub-50, these guys would be in strife.

Chris's comments are on point for the most part, but the word factions keeps coming up. How can it be factional? The board reps are independent and only met each other 11 months ago for the first time. Has nothing to do with that.

Can someone post this? It's on telegraph

Well articulated @teddy23

I was hoping it would create the opposite.

Yeah, that doesn't mean he's a puppet. He looks like the ringmaster to me.

@BlackWhiteGold Can we run an anonymous poll here? See if people want - Wests Tigers - Magpies - Balmain Would be interesting to see if everyone is on the same page.

If you think there was support on the forum for idiots like this too, you'd be mistaken.

How is he a puppet? The bloke is the chairman of the board and a WT board member who has undertaken three coups. Who is puppeting him? the only people it can be is the other debenture holders. So the same problem still stands.

That's actually a normal structure. Not involved in day-to-day running, but can replace the board if they have good cause to do so. The thing I don't get is that if things like jerseys were brought to the board, they can object and state their reasons. The other board members would know that...

The challenge is that the NRL can probably only force the hand for governance change at WT and HBG would always hold veto. So we'd end up with the same circus whenever someone proposed something logical, that HBG didn't like for subjective reasons. i.e. Both the jersey, grounds, and 1 state cup...

The members own it mate. Not these squatters holding debentures. That's the issue. They are not acting in the interests of their members; they are undemocratically there due to a historical anomaly. The two directors, who were the ones democratically elected by the owners (i.e. HBG members)...

Sorry, who owns the club? Dennis? The other debenture holders? Man, that must have been a good deal for $100. They own jack mate. Except for a $100 reimbursement

They've already done this three times (once at WT level and twice at HBG group) with no repercussions. So they probably think they can keep doing it. Id say there is something, of course. But to me the question is if that was deliberate and/or if issues were raised democratically at the board...

Regarding the Magpies returning. If that was off the back off some democratically elected representatives at HBG level with market tested data saying it was good for the club, then sure. Do it. Thats how it should work. The core of all our problems is the debenture system. Getting rid of that...

I think there is a second tier to this too. Even if some decisions were mistakenly believed it was in the normal operations of the business and not taken to board, then is dismissing the board the correct action? Where's the escalation to the board? WT would have had to deliberately circumvent...

Yep. Says it all really. Dealing with insecure little children who want only their way

I actually think HBG have gotten so used to dismissing boards or members, that they didn't understand the gravity of it this time. None of these guys face the media or accountability, so they would tend to live a little bubble. The fact that they had the CEO, someone who is not involved, face...

It may be somewhere in the middle. The problem that can't be excused is if their response was not to raise it or have a discussion at board level, but rather to just dissolve the board. And if this was an issue, and Richo was doing this with Barry, why is Richo not marched? I can't believe...

Think long and hard too mate. If this was the case, why was there no issue raised at board level by HBG reps, or other board members for that matter? Why was this not discussed and fixed? That's the correct way to resolve. There will be a trail in meeting minutes and Barry already said there...