@papacito said in [CEO](/post/1434294) said:@needaname said in [CEO](/post/1434272) said:@papacito said in [CEO](/post/1434240) said:@jadtiger said in [CEO](/post/1434237) said:@papacito said in [CEO](/post/1434230) said:@aubanon said in [CEO](/post/1434207) said:I know of a sponsor who wrote Pascoe an email some two-three months ago. The email discussed amongst other things, the performance of the team and make up of the board.
There were two main points raised in particular
1) Firstly, the sponsor expressed their desire for it to be communicated to the board that the current board arrangement appeared to lack direct accountability to stakeholders. There was no direct link between sponsors/fans and the board - no means of voting right membership in Wests Tigers.
2) The 2nd point raised by the sponsor was the fact that our board didn't have footy experience and pointed to Penrith and the Roosters as an example (Greg Alexander is a board member for Penrith & Luke Ricketson is a board member for the Roosters).
The sponsor was not even given the courtesy of an acknowledgement let alone a reply.
Fair to say, the sponsor wont be back in 2022.
While I'm sure this sponsor had their heart in the right place, they don't seem to know anything about how our board is composed.
Failures who cant be removed and even more failures who cant be removed.I can understand why the sponsor is less than impressed
You can always join one of the clubs that own Wests Tigers and vote accordingly.
You can even put your money where your mouth is and go for a spot on the board too.
Why should we have a board made up of leagues club members from our two joint ventures.
Gee talk about reducing the election options.
What do you propose?
We're no different to any other NRL club that's backed by a leagues club.
Maybe some would prefer the Parra or Dog's type board elections, where they create total kayos during elections? Then up factional fighting until the next elections?