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.
 
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 would it therefore be fair to conclude that; the Poddy crew, Byrne, Barnier and co ... will all be death riding our on field performances this year, as they look to maintain the rage in their revolutionary campaign to bring down HBG.

If as you say, when we start winning, only those with fixed agendas will care less who's on the Board.
 
So would it therefore be fair to conclude that; the Poddy crew, Byrne, Barnier and co ... will all be death riding our on field performances this year, as they look to maintain the rage in their revolutionary campaign to bring down HBG.

If as you say, when we start winning, only those with fixed agendas will care less who's on the Board.
The best possible outcome:
- win on the field
- reduce bgs influence on the wests tigers board so they dont have majority power

Then we will be truly winning.
 
The best possible outcome:
- win on the field
- reduce bgs influence on the wests tigers board so they dont have majority power

Then we will be truly winning.
I don't think you get to eat your cake and keep it too.
If Wests start rocketing up the competition ladder, then all the fizz goes out of your revolution.
 
They could have at least provided some reasons to justify the pay rises.
Some rubbery statistics maybe? Anything lol.
NRL Membership Tallies (Latest Available)

Brisbane Broncos61,280Final 2025 (NRL Record)
Melbourne Storm30,072Mar 2026 (Round 1 Record)
Parramatta Eels36,668Final 2025
Newcastle Knights32,097Final 2025
St George Illawarra Dragons28,610Final 2025
Dolphins28,594Final 2025
Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs27,000+2025 Record Estimate
Canberra Raiders23,286Final 2025
Sydney Roosters20,652Final 2025
Manly Sea Eagles20,017Final 2025 Record
Penrith Panthers19,4002024/25 Reported
Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks17,923Final 2025
North Queensland Cowboys15,841Final 2025
Wests Tigers9,000+Early 2025 Tracking
 
I don't think you get to eat your cake and keep it too.
If Wests start rocketing up the competition ladder, then all the fizz goes out of your revolution.
Way to dramatise it. Not a revolution, but hopefully HBG can see sense to step forward into a better governance model (which is just the recommendation report).

Ignoring the last 20 years of failures does no one any favours.
 
Warning: Long Read.

I had an hour to kill and there is a couple of hours until the team list is out so we can chat about footy. So I thought I would have a crack at trying to look at this latest issue from a neutral perspective. A difficult task given I have my own opinions and that the situation involving HBG and the governance of the Wests Tigers is one of the most complex issues in the NRL. Currently there are two overlapping issues that affect, or have the potential to affect, Wests Tigers.
  1. The December 2025 boardroom upheaval, where the independent directors were removed and later reinstated.
  2. The current proposal to increase director honorariums after the turmoil created by the upheaval and the exit of Richo that very likely involves a significant contract payout.
My aim is to look how these issues affect our short to medium term premiership prospects. But, to do so we need to go on a bit of a journey to look at "perspectives".

The 2026 pay-rise proposal
HBG proposed increasing board honorariums:
  • Chair: $51k → $65k
  • Deputy Chair: $33k → $50k
  • Directors: $25.6k → $32.5k
  • Additional $5k committee payments and hospitality cards.
Critics argue these payments would exceed those at many larger NRL-linked leagues clubs.

The issue
Supporters of the board’s position frame the issue as governance alignment and organisational scale, not self-enrichment. The argument is that the organisation is large and complex and the increased governance responsibilities have expanded and honorariums should reflect the scale and workload of the organisation. In shortthe board is effectively running a $100m enterprise, not just the WT football club and should be remunerated for this work.

It has also been stated that the independent Tigers board structure created poor communication and misalignment between the club and its owner. Therefore:
  • the independent board model failed;
  • the owner had insufficient oversight; and
  • strategic direction was unclear.
The logical conclusion being that intervention was necessary to restore alignment between the leagues club and football club.

Based on the requirement to run the entire enterprise HBG directors argue the increases merely bring pay into line with comparable organisations.

The opposite side of the coin
Critics view the pay rise proposal as tone-deaf governance failure. As a result they see a pay rise as rewarding failure. In addition to the runing a successful community clubs programe the HBG board were also responsible for:
  1. the Boardroom coup;
  2. the NRL intervention; and
  3. Richo’s resignation and payout
The media has described the board as “the most chaotic in NSW” so from this perspective the optics (and timing) of the proposal are disastrous. This suggests that the decision to remove the WT Board was poor governance discipline based on short-term decision making.

In addition, it is argued that, while legal, the HBG Board structure is undemocratic. Which is a long-term controversy. Critics argue that a minority of privileged members, not selected on merit, hold all of the power in the organisation and that the removal of the independent Wests Tigers board is a backwards step. The overlap between boards and related organisations creates potential issues including:
  • shared leadership across entities linked to HBG investments;
  • governance independence; and
  • oversight effectiveness.
The final issue raised against the pay rise is the financial optics vs football performance. Wests Tigers have been one of the least successful clubs in the NRL for over a decade and critics argue that the lack of growth and poor performances are directly linked to the off-field power struggles that distract from rebuilding the club and that the board remuneration debate will undermine fan trust.

So What Does This Mean?
The controversy exposes deeper systemic problems. The tension between HBG and Wests Tigers has again been highlighted with the key issue being the tension between HBG’s commercial interests and it’s sporting governance and funding requirement.

The independent directors were intended to create professional oversight and football-focused governance. The instability has definitely created reputation damage (as evidenced by HBG being labelled as “the most chaotic [board] in NSW”.

While not proven at this point in time it is highly likely that this has affected, or is likely to affect:
  • recruitment and retention;
  • sponsorship confidence; and
  • fan engagement.
Positives? The crisis clarified that HBG is the dominant stakeholder and this may allow:
  • faster decision making; and
  • stronger financial backing.
In addition the financial stability provided by HBG means that there is long-term funding with the ability to absorb financial shocks.

Negatives. The timing of the HBG remuneration announcement (week of the opening round for Wests Tigers) indicates that the HBG board are tone deaf. This has already created unwarranted media scrutiny and a drive, by the media, to create clickbait by seeking to reignite the Wests Magpies V Balmain Tigers V Wests Tigers debate. It may also open HBG to governance reform pressure from the NRL.

Strategic Implications for Wests Tigers

The situation creates two possible future paths: consolidated control or governance reform. The likely outcome of consolidated HBG control is stable ownership; but, persistent fan distrust. Whereas, if pressure from members, fans, or the NRL leads to the reappointment of more independent directors and democratic board elections it is likely to result in improved legitimacy. But at a cost!

Assessment
The HBG pay-rise proposal is controversial not because of the amounts alone but because of the timing and context. The optics are problematic:
  • governance crisis
  • CEO exit and payout
  • NRL intervention
  • then board pay increases.
However, the underlying issues run deeper than the pay rise:
  • ownership dominance
  • governance structure
  • accountability to members.
Until those structural questions are addressed, similar controversies are likely to reoccur.

The Bottom Line: This controversy is less about remuneration and more about who truly controls the Wests Tigers and how accountable that power is.

Are Wests Tigers chances of success in the NRL/NRLW affected?
The direct effect on our premiership chances is minimal. Board politics rarely affects the on-field performance week to week and in our case the key football decision-makers remain and the playing roster is unchanged. Provided those structures remain intact, the team’s tactical quality and preparation will continue largely unaffected.

But that doesn’t mean the crisis has no impact.

The medium-term effects are likely to be moderate to significant. Leadership instability means that there is a lack of alignment and is likely to affect:
  • commercial growth
  • recruitment credibility
  • structural reforms at the club.
This will result in: slower decision-making; delayed commercial deals; and the loss of strategic continuity. These factors indirectly impact football operations.

The biggest issue though is player confidence. This leads to a very real retention risk. While the current issues are manageable, continued governance instability is likely to affect player recruitment and retention. It is possible that we are already seeing the first indicators of this through the reluctance of players to extend contracts and agents advising clients to wait.

In a salary-capped league, recruitment stability is critical to premiership contention.

Long-Term Effects: Potentially Significant
. The biggest premiership impact is structural stability. Successful clubs share a pattern and have stable governance. This means: stable boards; long-term football strategies; and minimal political interference.

As Wests Tigers has demonstrated over the last decade; governance chaos correlates with poor performance.

Potential Positive Effects (Yes, They Exist). While mostly negative, there are two possible upside scenarios. If HBG consolidates authority and ends factional disputes, it could create: clearer decision-making; faster investment approvals; and stronger financial backing. A stable owner with strong finances can support a successful football program. If governance unrest continues the crises may force (potentially by intervention): governance reforms; clearer accountability; improved structures between the “owner” and football club. Paradoxically, crises often precede successful rebuilds in sport.

Worst-case scenario
If governance conflict escalates and key players leave; football department turnover rises; and intervention occurs the club will be set back years competitively.

Summary
The HBG governance crisis will not directly decide matches, but it can affect premiership chances through structural stability. The most likely effects:
  1. Short-term distraction
  2. Leadership instability
  3. Possible player recruitment/retention concerns
  4. Continued perception of organisational chaos
In elite sport, stable organisations win titles so until the governance structure settles, the Wests Tigers’ premiership window is structurally fragile.

The HBG situation probably won’t stop us winning the 2026 premiership — because we aren’t expected to anyway— but ongoing instability will delay us from becoming a genuine contender in the future.
 
Last edited:
So would it therefore be fair to conclude that; the Poddy crew, Byrne, Barnier and co ... will all be death riding our on field performances this year, as they look to maintain the rage in their revolutionary campaign to bring down HBG.

If as you say, when we start winning, only those with fixed agendas will care less who's on the Board.
Well it’s long been my point of view to let our results do the talking and if we improve it should be something for all Wests Tigers supporters to be happy about.
We have too many people predicting the furure that it will be all doom and gloom and as you say I think we have some hoping we fail just to give them more ammunition to put the boot into HBG.
Maybe we need a seminar on positive thinking.
 
"Way to dramatise it" - How long have HBG been in control of the Wests Ts Board ?
Fair call. They only took full control in 2016. So only a decade. Partial for the other decade.

But this would equally apply even if it was still split with Balmain. We need better leaders. I don't care which league's club - either would not be a vehicle for the best corporate board talent.
 
I don't think you get to eat your cake and keep it too.
If Wests start rocketing up the competition ladder, then all the fizz goes out of your revolution.
Not if HBG do thier usual bullshit and start knifing each other over who gets the last croissant .. and I’m not joking . Then the on field will just be in parrallel to management of the brand . Probably emphasing the contrast in stark colouring .
 
An ex-premier is seeing the dysfunction of the debenture system firsthand. Laws can change.

... and L&G can get involved if you note that the board has been dysfunctional. They are there to act in the best interests of members. Go and type into Gemini what breaches they may have given recent scandals and you'll see what I mean.

We honestly don't need investment. That's not the problem. We generated a profit last year. It's having the right skillsets on the WT board to take us forward. HBG has the majority and have shown that they struggle with governing.

We improved last year and I largely put that down to our new governance structures. You want to win? that's how we win.
Almost every NRL club is generating a profit after the grant went from $12-$13m to $19m.

I think someone published an article earlier about how much other Leagues are putting into their football program compared to us and we are last by far. (Maybe in another HBG thread).

I actually have no doubt that we are improving and will continue to improve, but every NRL club is improving.

We have always scraped from the bottom of the barrel for support staff, not just at NRL level, but all the way down to Schoolboys. With the amount of teams we have in each comp, if you look at how much money is invested per player, I think that would be quite bad.

To me, it is about money. IMO we are surviving because salary cap allows us to buy guys like Mays, Fainus, Luais, Apis etc and because we have a big junior base, we get the more skilful players in our system.

I believe that we have the right people on the Board (the independents) but everyone is handicapped by how much we can invest into our Football programs. The NRL support staff might be getting good money, but I personally know that the support staff at HM, JF and even Women's comps get peanuts compared to other Clubs.

Apparently Gus' new motto is "club first, team, second, individual 3rd". It's not about what position on the ladder our Club is at (in the lower comps), but how much support these players are getting on the day to day basis to help them succeed at NRL level.

Gus has been successful everywhere he went because he secured funding first. He secured Packer's money for Penrith and then he secured Laundy's money for Bulldogs.

This is a big reason why when Penrith players go from JF to NSW Cup to NRL, they look like they haven't missed a beat. The coaching directors and coaches are all on the same page. They play the same way from juniors to seniors.

Setting up systems like this and getting the right people on board takes a lot of money.

I may have said some stuff above as facts, but a lot of it is opinion based on how much reading I've done last few years.

Lastly in terms of L&G getting involved, do you actually see that happening? And let's say even if they come up with new Board members at HBG level, the WT Board and CEO still need to lobby hard to secure more funding from HBG.
 
I think there was an AGM of the Broncos published somewhere that showed they put in $30m into the football department in 2024. Compare that to our $1.7m. NRL grant is the same and let's say the sponsorships (we got $6m) is the same.
 
Not if HBG do thier usual bullshit and start knifing each other over who gets the last croissant .. and I’m not joking . Then the on field will just be in parrallel to management of the brand . Probably emphasing the contrast in stark colouring .
I think its irrelevant. It sounds like they will be going to court, so they are going to be put under the microscope whether the wests tigers win or not.
 
Back
Top