Search results

There are other of the independents returning.

Doesn't that mean they weren't well functioning to begin with?

There was a process at that time.that included a thorough external review. That wasn't last time either, HBG dismissed a total of 8 directors since that time in 3 different occasions across 2 boards.

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.

Or add HBG Directors

Very tabloid and a little too sensationalised in his titles for my liking, but he does a really good job.

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.

Then they needed better representatives, they left their representatives in place until one of them got themselves in further trouble.

So without any clarity can you blame fans for taking action?

So in that situation, why would you sack the independent directors but leave the 2 HBG appointed directors who acted on your behalf incorrectly?

Again if you don't communicate with your stakeholders then you leave yourself open to that.

Again it would be the responsibility of the HBG appointed directors to state they need further time to discuss with their board before passing a motion. They are there solely as the representatives of the HBG. If they vote or allow a motion to pass they are acting on behalf of the HBG.

You are correct, we don't know but the statement you keep talking about stated that HBG needed to take back control of the club. If the board is going to be a majority independent board then HBG could have put this to bed months ago by stating that. For the sake of clarity, more than just...

If they were big enough to take him back, then they shouldn't have dismissed the independent in the first place. They should have sorted this before it got to that point.

So which of those 2 options show HBG acting in a manner that is a positive for the Wests Tigers? They have messed up in either of those scenarios, that is my point.

Isn't that what HBG did by dismissing the independent directors and then needing to backtrack and reappoint them?

What point shows them in a positive light though?

That's why an external review was important. Let professional establish what was wrong inside the club.

I would hope they knew, not felt before they dismissed 4 board members for lack of communication. Probably damaged the professional reputation of a couple of them. Im surprised that some of them are returning.

So wouldn't the blame for that fall to the directors they appointed.