Chammas Article

BZN said:
Not quite, cochise. We're Wests Tigers because of the Magpies and Balmain too.
The Magpie legacy isn't a relic, it's a foundation.
Strip that away, and you're not honouring the JV...you're rewriting it.
Click to expand...
Not at all, I honour the Magpies legacy in lots of ways, with every piece of Wests Tigers merchandise I buy, with every Wests Tigers game I attend, with my Wests Tigers membership, with my membership of Wests Ashfield and the game day events I run there, with the Magpies games I attend at Lidcombe and watch on TV, with my application to become a member of the Magpies football club.

The list goes on, what do you do to honour the Magpies legacy? Other than come on here and bag other people. I probably support the Magpies more than you do.
 
Big Red said:
OK, but you’re making specific claims about what future generations will care about.


Historically, tribes, societies, civilisations succeed based on their aptitude to survive and an understanding of the past. Our club is no different.
Click to expand...
Yes.

The eradication of nations state history has never ended well. Pol pot had a swing at it.

And to a lesser extent, cancel culture and wokeletism has led to a push back and a greater recognition for nostalgia from many. Meghan Markle isn’t doing well with her numb interpretation of fairness.

The ebbs and flows of public felicitation for historical context.

We should be able to express positivity about both foundation clubs, in their own right and in equal measure.

That’s my own approach. Hasn’t led to any issues for me yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BZN
cochise said:
Not at all, I honour the Magpies legacy in lots of ways, with every piece of Wests Tigers merchandise I buy, with every Wests Tigers game I attend, with my Wests Tigers membership, with my membership of Wests Ashfield and the game day events I run there, with the Magpies games I attend at Lidcombe and watch on TV, with my application to become a member of the Magpies football club.

The list goes on, what do you do to honour the Magpies legacy? Other than come on here and bag other people. I probably support the Magpies more than you do.
Click to expand...
Fair call cochise...but words alone don't preserve a legacy.

It's also about tone, respect, and the way we lift each other up in honour of that legacy.

Since I joined WTF, I've stood firm for the Magpies because I believe in their place, not just in history, but in our future.

If that's bagging people maybe it's worth asking why defending the Magpies feels so confrontational to you.

Actions count, yes...but so does heart.
 
  • Love
Reactions: TSP
innsaneink said:
My god theres some bullshit here
Click to expand...
Sounds like ink is flared up again.

I'll say this...pointing at "bullshit" without addressing specifics is just noise.

If there's substance behind the claim, let's see it laid out.

Otherwise, let's keep the focus where it belongs...upholding the legacy with facts, integrity, and a bit of respect for those who genuinely care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TSP
Suzie-Q said:
IMO, heritage jerseys for WESTS TIGERS should be the 2000 and the 2005 jerseys. That's what Wests Tigers are known for.
Click to expand...
If we're talking heritage Suzie-Q, it goes much deeper than 2000 and 2005.
Those are Wests Tigers milestones...important, no doubt...but heritage means origin.

The black and white of the Magpies and the black and gold of Balmain are where it all began.
Ignoring that is like celebrating the tree but forgetting the roots.

You can't honour a JV without honouring both sides of its DNA.
 
  • Love
Reactions: TSP
weststigers said:
Sorry mate, but saying HBG own 90% and that should infiltrate the branding of the Wests Tigers is wrong on all levels. The brand is Wests Tigers. Particularly when they barely invest in the club compared to other owners in the league. We are not the 90% Wests Magpies Rugby League Club. We are Wests Tigers.

Wests would be dead without Balmain and you wouldn't have a club to talk this nonsense about. I'm shocked at what a knob you are being by throwing out ownership percentage, when Balmain saved Wests when they were on the bones of their ass.

You have an incredibly selective memory. Wake up to yourself.
Click to expand...
I'll stop and wake up when the facts stop being inconvenient to many on here.

Balmain absolutely helped Wests Magpies in a tough moment, no one is denying that.

But the present reality is a 90% stake held by Wests, ongoing investment in juniors, and an identity that's still active...not extinct.

If that makes me a "knob", so be it.
But the fact remains...Wests own 90% of this JV and continues to invest in its future.
The real discomfort some have isn't with ownership...it's with what fair recognition would actually look like.
If we acknowledged Wests Magpies current contribution proportionally, we'd have to admit that the balance of identity hasn't caught up with the reality of governance.
That's not arrogance.
That's asking for alignment.
 
BZN said:
Fair call cochise...but words alone don't preserve a legacy.

It's also about tone, respect, and the way we lift each other up in honour of that legacy.

Since I joined WTF, I've stood firm for the Magpies because I believe in their place, not just in history, but in our future.

If that's bagging people maybe it's worth asking why defending the Magpies feels so confrontational to you.

Actions count, yes...but so does heart.
Click to expand...
You still see the club as the 1908 Magpies.

The name might be inspired by both clubs, but it's a 25 year old club now.

As much as I loved Balmain, I have to allow the future to take hold as Wests Tigers. Both clubs are gone. Have you not noticed?

There's a wests logo and balmain logo on the back of the jersey. What more do you want? It's a serious question.
 
Not having a go at anyone here as everyone is entitled to their opinion, but is the name Wests Tigers not honouring both clubs equally?
Wests as in Western Suburbs Magpies and Tigers as in Balmain Tigers.
We generally wear a predominantly black jersey a few times per season and generally wear a predominantly orange jersey a few times per season, in all honesty it seems pretty fair to me.
 
BZN said:
I'll stop and wake up when the facts stop being inconvenient to many on here.

Balmain absolutely helped Wests Magpies in a tough moment, no one is denying that.

But the present reality is a 90% stake held by Wests, ongoing investment in juniors, and an identity that's still active...not extinct.

If that makes me a "knob", so be it.
But the fact remains...Wests own 90% of this JV and continues to invest in its future.
The real discomfort some have isn't with ownership...it's with what fair recognition would actually look like.
If we acknowledged Wests Magpies current contribution proportionally, we'd have to admit that the balance of identity hasn't caught up with the reality of governance.
That's not arrogance.
That's asking for alignment.
Click to expand...
Be clear mate, what is the alignment you are asking for? If you can't answer that simple question then it is obvious that you are only here to stir up Wests Tigers supporters.
 
kiwitiger said:
Not going to lie. We should ditch the legacy of both clubs.
We should try and be successful.
They werent. Thats why we are a JV.
Trying to keep losers happy is why wests tigers fans are unhappy.
Click to expand...
Completely agree @kiwitiger I've been following footy since 1979, so I remember Western Suburbs, and Balmain. Went to both LO and Lidcombe to watch 3 grades play. So, I have the memories of and nostalgia for the "good old days". And all this back and forth about 90% ownership, too much orange, black, not enough white, etc, etc drives nuts. I can't imagine how much of a rabble, loser club Wests Tigers must look like to people 30 years old and younger who don't have those memories. If we want more supporters, and ti be successful, IMO, we need MORE Wests Tigers and less carry on from the previous clubs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,400 (members: 40, guests: 1,360)
Back
Top