Breaking news: HBG takeover

hammertime said:
You said it. Do you think this is the best interests of the club or self-interest? There is no mechanism for them to find out, via member's vote, given that they have squatter's rights.

As I said in an earlier post, if these guys were democratically elected by the owners (i.e. members) and they had data to say this was in the best interest of the club, then so be it. But these guys parading around like they own something, acting on their own interests, is something that needs to be fixed.

They are not owners, like someone who actually put up their own cash, they are representatives for members and have a fiduciary duty to act in accordance with that.
Click to expand...
That's not up to me that's up to HBG and they obviously believe it's in the best interests of the club.
 
hammertime said:
Here's what google gemini managed to summarise for us for potential breaches. Keep in mind, this is just from publicly available information so will be limited.

Based on recent events involving the Holman Barnes Group (HBG)—including the mass sacking of the Wests Tigers board, the suspension of directors, and the internal handling of a "touching" incident—the members and the board have potentially breached several specific pieces of NSW legislation and industry codes.

1. Primary Legislative Breaches​

The most serious potential breaches relate to the Registered Clubs Act 1976 and the Liquor Act 2007, which govern the operation and integrity of clubs in NSW.

A. Registered Clubs Act 1976 (NSW)​

  • Section 30 (Rules of Registered Clubs): This section mandates that a club's rules must align with proper governance standards. The "shambolic" governance described by the Inner West Mayor and the mass suspension of directors could be seen as a failure to maintain rules that ensure the orderly conduct of the club.
    • Potential Breach: If certain directors (e.g., in the "touching" scandal) were protected from disciplinary action by their allies on the board, they effectively received a "benefit" (immunity/protection) not available to ordinary members, which is a serious breach of the Act.

B. Liquor Act 2007 (NSW)​

  • Section 68 (Fit and Proper Person Test):To hold a liquor licence or be a secretary/manager of a registered club, individuals must be "fit and proper."
    • Potential Breach: The alleged "touching" incident involving a director ("tapping" a woman with a voting paddle and making inappropriate comments) directly challenges this test. If the board knowingly retained a director who engaged in such conduct without appropriate action, the club itself risks being deemed non-compliant with its fit and proper person obligations.

C. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)​

  • Whistleblower Protections:The HBG disciplinary committee statement explicitly mentioned complaints made via "whistleblower channels."
    • Potential Breach: If the whistleblower who reported the "touching" incident or governance failures was ignored, identified, or retaliated against (or if the complaints were suppressed by a faction of the board), this would breach strict federal whistleblower laws.
  • Directors' Duties: Directors have a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company (the club). "Protecting" a colleague from misconduct allegations for political reasons is a breach of this duty.

2. Breaches of Codes of Practice​

Beyond the "hard" law, HBG members likely breached mandatory and voluntary industry codes that set the standard for ethical conduct.

A. Registered Clubs Accountability Code (Statutory)​

  • Status: Mandatory (Schedule 2 of the Registered Clubs Regulation 2015/2025).
  • Disclosure of Interests: Directors must disclose any material personal interest in a matter being considered by the board.
  • Potential Breach: In the context of the "boardroom coup" and infighting, if directors voted on matters where they had a personal conflict (e.g., voting to suspend a rival to save their own position), they breached this statutory code.

B. ClubsNSW Code of Practice​

  • Status: Condition of Membership (Enforced by ClubsNSW).
    • Potential Breach: The "touching" incident is a clear violation. Furthermore, the alleged "protection" of the accused director by others creates a culture that tolerates harassment, further breaching the code.
  • Responsible Governance: The Code requires boards to act with transparency and integrity. The "chaos," "instability," and mass sackings cited by public officials suggest a failure to meet these governance standards.

Summary of Potential Breaches​


Incident/IssuePotential BreachRelevant Authority
"Touching" ScandalFit & Proper Person TestLiquor Act 2007 (s68)
Harassment/Workplace ConductClubsNSW Code of Practice
Protecting Accused DirectorUndue Benefit to MemberRegistered Clubs Act 1976 (s10)
Fiduciary DutiesCorporations Act 2001
Board Infighting & CoupsGovernance RulesRegistered Clubs Act 1976 (s30)
Conflict of InterestRegistered Clubs Accountability Code
Ignoring ComplaintsWhistleblower ProtectionsCorporations Act 2001
Click to expand...
Just on the surface , there’s grounds for a serious investigation . The issue with all the backstabbing of last year , is there would be a lot of people willing to tell thier story .
 
Odessa said:
So at the end of 27 the NRL can offer the licence to someone else


The NRL owns the name and Logo of the West Tiger's it would not be hard


Just bypass HBG maybe West Campbelltown and or Balmain can make a new deal


Or West Campbelltown and the NRL
Click to expand...
Or East Tigers, they have more money than Ashfield and it solves a couple of problems for the NRL.

One less Sydney side and that gives the NRL an extra team in Brisbane.

Brisbane Tigers it may well be.

Then Penrith and Canterbury can take over Western Sydney.

A win win for the NRL no more drama from a club that has been utterly incompetent for 25 years.
 
diedpretty said:
I asked BAGN05 who reported it - he has been having a go about everyone just throwing stuff out there so i wanted him to tell me who actually reported that they weren't attending meetings - no doubt he can't tell me because he was just doing what he accused others of doing.
Click to expand...
It was in the major newspapers, google it.
 
WestsEffTheRest said:
That's not up to me that's up to HBG and they obviously believe it's in the best interests of the club.
Click to expand...
Hey do we know that on face value though ? . The best predictor of the future is the past . And these people especially Dennis have proven time and again they are incapable of making decisions in the best interest of the club. Exhibit A removing the 4 independents . A review instigated by the club came back with this as a recommendation , yet these people with no visible experience in anything like running a multi million dollar football club , are saying they know better . To me that very scenario implies they are incapable of making these types of pragmatic decisions . It’s been litterally less than a year . The board convenes once a month so at most , they’ve had 9-10 board meetings . How is that enough of a data base to form any opinion one way or another . And to be more extreme , this decisions to axed them , if it didn’t come in a whim then implies they wanted to axe them after even less of a data base . So 5-8 board meetings . Thats probably litterally in relative terms 15-24 hrs of actual face to face interactions … it’s nonsense .
 
Bigscreentv said:
What in the actual F? If Lee Hag is Paul Bearer, then he must be The Undertaker.

Might be time to get Anthony Wiggle to come in and buy the club with his Hot Potato money.
Click to expand...
Last time Anthony blue man was asked in an article , he said he wanted to bring back a balmain tigers... still a better option
 
WestsEffTheRest said:
That's not up to me that's up to HBG and they obviously believe it's in the best interests of the club.
Click to expand...
They just removed the ONLY TWO people who were voted in by the members because they had a different view. So no, they are not operating with that modus operandi. There is enough evidence now that this debenture group are acting out of self-interest, not those of the club or members.

.... and if they beleive they are - open yourselves up for election.
 
tigertragic said:
Dennis Burgess
Chairman HBG
Dennis Burgess
Board member WT

Given dear Dennis holds the highest position on the HBG Board and is also on the Wests Tigers Board why

Didn’t HE communicate with the HBG Board on WT decisions

Didn’t HE suggest WT considerations/matters needed to be escalated or referred to the HBG Board

Didn’t HE get SACKED for failing in his ‘duties’ as a director/board member of both boards

Four independents get booted to load up on HBG Reps to take the term independent (and successful) out of the WT vocabulary.
Click to expand...
How dare you come to this conversation and use logic. It's not welcome here. On your merry way soldier.
 
coivtny said:
The thing that surprises me about this week is we haven’t heard from those two mental giants Benny Elias and Blocker Roach. I might have missed their comments but they usually don’t leave us wondering.
Click to expand...
I know. I was looking forward to being pissed of by something they said.
 
Lestronge said:
Hey do we know that on face value though ? . The best predictor of the future is the past . And these people especially Dennis have proven time and again they are incapable of making decisions in the best interest of the club. Exhibit A removing the 4 independents . A review instigated by the club came back with this as a recommendation , yet these people with no visible experience in anything like running a multi million dollar football club , are saying they know better . To me that very scenario implies they are incapable of making these types of pragmatic decisions . It’s been litterally less than a year . The board convenes once a month so at most , they’ve had 9-10 board meetings . How is that enough of a data base to form any opinion one way or another . And to be more extreme , this decisions to axed them , if it didn’t come in a whim then implies they wanted to axe them after even less of a data base . So 5-8 board meetings . Thats probably litterally in relative terms 15-24 hrs of actual face to face interactions … it’s nonsense .
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you re Dennis he's a flog but we don't know if he's involved in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

... and 10 more.
Total: 645 (members: 60, guests: 585)
Back
Top