HBG Directors give themselves Pay rise

It’s been dubbed ‘the most chaotic board in NSW’. But Wests Tigers’ owners are pushing for a pay rise

By Chris Barrett

March 7, 2026 — 4.21pm
Wests Tigers’ owners are bidding to give themselves a pay rise three months after a shambolic episode in which they sacked chairman Barry O’Farrell and three other directors before backflipping at the behest of the NRL.

The Holman Barnes Group, which owns 90 per cent of the Tigers and holds the licence for the NRL team, has for the past year been embroiled in turmoil that has threatened to spill over into the football club.

Now, its board members are seeking a boost which would see them collect more than their counterparts at most other Sydney clubs with ties to NRL teams.

HBG is proposing that its chairman’s annual honorarium be lifted from $51,341 to $65,000, the deputy chair’s fee to be raised from $33,371 to $50,000, and all other directors to get $32,500 instead of $25,670. All would also receive an extra $5000 if they sit on a club committee.

The effective $70,000 payment per annum for the chairman would eclipse the amounts paid to those in charge at most of Sydney’s major NRL-affiliated leagues clubs, including those with much larger membership bases.

Parramatta Leagues Club, which owns the Eels and has 65,000 members, gives its president $30,000 a year and other directors $20,000.

The 60,000-member Canterbury League Club, which is strongly linked to the Bulldogs and backs them financially, allows for a total of $229,801 to be paid to its seven directors including the chairman – an average of $32,828, although the chair and deputy chair receive a greater share.

St George Leagues Club, which owns 50 per cent of the Dragons and has 25,000 members, hands its chair $16,000 a year and ordinary directors $12,000, plus $2000 for each committee they sit on.

HBG has 27,000 members and the proposed honoraria for its board are exceeded only by those at Penrith NRL team owners Panthers Group, where total revenue was nearly $180 million in 2025 and which has a membership base of 148,000. The Panthers’ chairman receives $80,000 a year, its two deputies get $40,000 each and the remaining directors pick up $20,000 per annum.

Like those at other clubs, the HBG board members can take advantage of other perks of the position such as food and drinks. At the club’s annual general meeting on March 21 members will also be asked to approve its chairman and deputy receiving $500 per month hospitality cards.

As Holman Barnes Group’s business has expanded, the workload and governance responsibilities placed on directors have increased substantially,” said HBG vice-chairman Frank Primerano, who also sits on the Wests Tigers board.

“The proposed adjustments simply bring board honorariums into line with the scale of the organisation and the time commitment required, particularly as directors are increasingly involved in committees and strategic projects during this period of significant growth and investment.”

A source familiar with the activities of HBG, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said: “How can the most chaotic board in NSW simultaneously become one of the highest paid?

“If the stipend for the board were based on performance then quite obviously these people would be getting a pay cut, not a pay day.”

HBG, which oversees venues including Wests Ashfield, returned a net profit of $11.9 million in 2025 after raking in $52 million from poker machines and recording overall revenue of $100 million, according to its annual report.

But the organisation has been plagued by dysfunction during the past 18 months, with several board members controversially removed and former NSW premier O’Farrell and three other independent directors then sensationally axed from the Tigers last December less than a year after they were installed following a governance review.

After concerns were raised by the NRL, HBG reinstated them days later and O’Farrell was Tigers chairman. But the club was forced into a costly payout to Tigers chief executive Shane Richardson, who resigned amid the boardroom chaos 18 months into a four-year contract, and settled out of court with former HBG director Rick Wayde, a key instigator of the Tigers review, after he was banned for eight years.

HBG, which owns the NRL team via its control of Wests Magpies, has since beefed up its representation on the Tigers board, giving it an effective majority.

While the Tigers are governed separately to their owners, NRL funding for the team flows through HBG.

According to its latest financial report, HBG received $20 million from the NRL in 2025 and owes $36 million to players and head coach Benji Marshall over the next five years.

HBG is unusual in that the balance of power lies with 20 so-called debenture holders, who choose the majority of its directors under a decades-old, undemocratic system.

Only two of nine board seats are directly elected by the wider membership and there will not be a ballot for those spots at this month’s AGM after one of the three nominations withdrew.

The two remaining are well known to HBG board members: Shannon Cavanagh, a director of Wests Magpies alongside HBG chairman Dennis Burgess and Primerano, and Aldo Di Mento, a director of APIA Leichardt FC – the inner-west soccer team in which HGB bought a stake last year and on whose board Primerano and HBG chief executive Daniel Paton also sit.
 
Who is really pulling the strings then?

As I've told you on many occasions, I have never cared for the board or the HBG. I am a wests tigers fan through and through. I only took interest when their actions disrupted the club.
Long story short there is a clique that has long held the balance of power.
Some of the clique don’t even necessarily like each other, but form an alliance simply to hold the balance of power.
Over the years this clique has changed with differences of opinions and fall outs etc.
Far from ideal, but it’s no different what happens on just about every other board whether that be in the rugby league world or the corporate world.
Our club gets put under the spotlight due to our long term poor results. If we become a regular finals team the same backroom dramas could keep happening, but won’t get a mention.
 
Why was Romero banned if she is the one who got rid of them? Wouldnt HBG have been grateful for what she did?
My opinion is, after the first petition and review, Rick Wayde, Tony Andreacchio and Gilbert were removed because of their support for the review.

Romero was put in place to role back the implementation of the recommendations. After the second petition HBG was pressured into appointing the independent directors. Simon Cook and Romero did the announcement with richo.

Romero was removed for folding to the pressure. Simon Cookand richo are no longer involved and the recommendations have been all but wiped from the club.
 
Long story short there is a clique that has long held the balance of power.
Some of the clique don’t even necessarily like each other, but form an alliance simply to hold the balance of power.
Over the years this clique has changed with differences of opinions and fall outs etc.
Far from ideal, but it’s no different what happens on just about every other board whether that be in the rugby league world or the corporate world.
Our club gets put under the spotlight due to our long term poor results. If we become a regular finals team the same backroom dramas could keep happening, but won’t get a mention.
So most organisations remove 8 directors, including 3 chairs and replace 2 CEOs in an 18 month period?
 
My opinion is, after the first petition and review, Rick Wayde, Tony Andreacchio and Gilbert were removed because of their support for the review.

Romero was put in place to role back the implementation of the recommendations. After the second petition HBG was pressured into appointing the independent directors. Simon Cook and Romero did the announcement with richo.

Romero was removed for folding to the pressure. Simon Cookand richo are no longer involved and the recommendations have been all but wiped from the club.
I reckon you are spot on.
But if HBG are just going to go rogue and not implement any outside opinions or recommendations, why is BOF agreeing to be the chairman ?
I can’t imagine he would be wasting his time if he has no say in anything due to being outnumbered and outvoted ?
 
So most organisations remove 8 directors, including 3 chairs and replace 2 CEOs in an 18 month period?
Not generally that many changes in that short of a time period, but there are always going to be cliques and alliances that hold the balance of power to make decisions that suit their own agenda.
We could have an independent board and that would still happen to a certain extent.
 
I reckon you are spot on.
But if HBG are just going to go rogue and not implement any outside opinions or recommendations, why is BOF agreeing to be the chairman ?
I can’t imagine he would be wasting his time if he has no say in anything due to being outnumbered and outvoted ?
I'd say PVL and Barry have come to an agreement.

HBG were honestly idiots for getting rid of a bloke who could have influence over L&G laws. Some day they'll shoot themselves in the foot.
 
I reckon you are spot on.
But if HBG are just going to go rogue and not implement any outside opinions or recommendations, why is BOF agreeing to be the chairman ?
I can’t imagine he would be wasting his time if he has no say in anything due to being outnumbered and outvoted ?
He’s come from politics where it’s only a matter of time before power moves to another. He’ll just bide his time and wait.
Or he’s just figures if he doesn’t hang about and push for the values he believes in for weststigers who will
 
My opinion is, after the first petition and review, Rick Wayde, Tony Andreacchio and Gilbert were removed because of their support for the review.

Romero was put in place to role back the implementation of the recommendations. After the second petition HBG was pressured into appointing the independent directors. Simon Cook and Romero did the announcement with richo.

Romero was removed for folding to the pressure. Simon Cookand richo are no longer involved and the recommendations have been all but wiped from the club.
You are right about Romero.

Below is that special episode of Behind the Roar with Wests Tigers CEO Shane Richardson, Wests Tigers Interim Chair Barry O’Farrell, Holman Barnes Group CEO Simon Cook, and Holman Barnes Group Chair Julie Romero.

Richo was very dominant and to me Romero was sitting there stony faced, I don't think she was very comfortable being there on the losing side.

It looked to me at the time that she was dragged along and was forced to toe the line and to me she looked like she was going to be a casualty somewhere down the line.

 
Maybe if you didn't post stupid or aggravating things that are annoying you wouldn't cop ridicule.

You forget that this isn't an exclusive Wests only forum and your sometimes one-eyed view draws attention you don't like.
Plenty of opinions on here that I also vehemently disagree with, yet I strive to keep my responses civil.

FYI - This forum is a Wests forum!
I assume however, that when you write Wests you’re referring to Wests Ms. Please show me all these examples where you claim I’ve treated this forum as an exclusively Wests Ms forum.
 
Last edited:
Lets not do the whole Wests Magpies debate please...

We should do three things to keep magpies rusted on's happy. Keep a NSW cup team as magpies, release a black and white jersey, and a magpie on the sleeve at an appropriate size. That's it. Over time, as that generation passes, there may be room to rebrand as one. That's not now. It makes sense why people are still attached.

However, there are some sickofants who twist themselves in knots for HBG. That's all I'm keen to try to understand and debate. I cannot understand people defending the indefensible. We should want to have the best on the WT board and we had that, but they rolled back the report.
 
If you'd stopped at the first paragraph I would have though "good post" but after pleadng to not do the whole Magpies debate again you go on to give it a good prod along in your next two paragraphs.
As a largely neutral bystander I find your comments dishonest and disingenuous.
 
If you'd stopped at the first paragraph I would have though "good post" but after pleadng to not do the whole Magpies debate again you go on to give it a good prod along in your next two paragraphs.
As a largely neutral bystander I find your comments dishonest and disingenuous.
Welcome to the forum.
I thought exactly the same reading Hammer’s post. But I loved your first post, you dropped it into drive for that one.
@Merlot 😎
 
If you'd stopped at the first paragraph I would have though "good post" but after pleadng to not do the whole Magpies debate again you go on to give it a good prod along in your next two paragraphs.
As a largely neutral bystander I find your comments dishonest and disingenuous.
Hold on. Nothing disingenuous about me man. I have been consistent, time and time again. The 2nd paragraph aims to solidify the status quo and move on. We shouldn't circle back to that debate - it's not the issue.

The 3rd has nothing to do with the magpies. HBG are our owners. If you are somehow equating the two, you need to think differently. They now fund all Balmain juniors and hold the greats of both clubs in their title. We need strong leadership and a way to fix their brain explosions.

Where's the dishonest part? I really dont get it.
 
Hold on. Nothing disingenuous about me man. I have been consistent, time and time again. The 2nd paragraph aims to solidify the status quo and move on. We shouldn't circle back to that debate - it's not the issue.

The 3rd has nothing to do with the magpies. HBG are our owners. If you are somehow equating the two, you need to think differently. They now fund all Balmain juniors and hold the greats of both clubs in their title. We need strong leadership and a way to fix their brain explosions.

Where's the dishonest part? I really dont get it.
Agree. HBG is the entity which receives the $20m pa from the NRL not Wests Tigers or Magpies.
 
Back
Top