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.
 
I think it’s 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.
I’ve said this before but I don’t actually care who these jokers are , if they can just stop interfering in football operations, which extends to branding and whatever .
But the simply can’t help themselves . They’re like a smoker craving a cigarette with 25 nicotine patches on thier arm . It’s only a matter of time ..
 
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.
After that case has you thinking if from the independents who don't return will they want a piece of them as well, more unwanted attention likely to last right through the season, then we will be due for another stuff up.

Just sell FFS then use the money for another club with pokies and meals etc, seem to do that competently.
 
Last edited:
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.

Page 38-39. Total expenses were $73 million dollars.

I know it is very difficult to compare expenses of one team compared to another as there are a million reasons why that could differ.

But, the point is that Wests Tigers are operating at a budget of $20.7 million dollars. How much do we think the operating budget of the Broncos football department is?
 
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.
Money is limited by the cap, so increasing it won't get you better players in 1st grade. There could be more into pathways, but that doesn't help if they still want to leave the club at the end of it. (e.g. Galvin, TDS, Large etc.)

The exception to money helping is 3rd party and connections after football. I know that Politis won Cronk over after he managed to get him into Harvard for post playing career. That also comes from a better-connected, independent board.

Gus is successful because he is Gus. He attracts players because of his stature, intelligence, and connections. Much like Nick at the Roosters, Brandy at the Panthers or Rusty at the Bunnies. Benji is doing the same for us, given he was a childhood hero for a few of these players, but he can't do his job if he's getting overridden by the drama from HBG.

It's those things that will help us build an elite 1st grade team.
 
Money is limited by the cap, so increasing it won't get you better players in 1st grade. There could be more into pathways, but that doesn't help if they still want to leave the club at the end of it. (e.g. Galvin, TDS, Large etc.)

The exception to money helping is 3rd party and connections after football. I know that Politis won Cronk over after he managed to get him into Harvard for post playing career. That also comes from a better-connected, independent board.

Gus is successful because he is Gus. He attracts players because of his stature, intelligence, and connections. Much like Nick at the Roosters, Brandy at the Panthers or Rusty at the Bunnies. Benji is doing the same for us, given he was a childhood hero for a few of these players, but he can't do his job if he's getting overridden by the drama from HBG.

It's those things that will help us build an elite 1st grade team.
I agree, but extra dollars are needed to shore up our pathways (players, coaches and talent scouts) and there of plenty of other opportunities to provide better "conditions" lfor our players and potential players similar to what the successful clubs are doing that are ouside of the cap.
 
Money is limited by the cap, so increasing it won't get you better players in 1st grade. There could be more into pathways, but that doesn't help if they still want to leave the club at the end of it. (e.g. Galvin, TDS, Large etc.)

The exception to money helping is 3rd party and connections after football. I know that Politis won Cronk over after he managed to get him into Harvard for post playing career. That also comes from a better-connected, independent board.

Gus is successful because he is Gus. He attracts players because of his stature, intelligence, and connections. Much like Nick at the Roosters, Brandy at the Panthers or Rusty at the Bunnies. Benji is doing the same for us, given he was a childhood hero for a few of these players, but he can't do his job if he's getting overridden by the drama from HBG.

It's those things that will help us build an elite 1st grade team.
That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that you need to create a belt of good players from your Juniors. That's what Penrith did. I agree that attracting good players comes down to connections, but that is a small % of players. I'm not talking about your top line players. I'm talking about the hundreds of players in our Juniors and the bottom 10 of our top roster that need mentoring and coaching.

Benji has attracted top line players. That's great, but a couple of top line players will not help you years down the track. It is helpful to have Luai, Api, May etc but they will not be coaching your JF team. You cannot create a successful club from top to bottom, it has to be from bottom to top.

The exception I can maybe see is Storm which rorted the cap at the top and the Big 3 set a standard in place that was followed from top to bottom. I cannot see that happening at our Club.
 
I agree, but extra dollars are needed to shore up our pathways (players, coaches and talent scouts) and there of plenty of other opportunities to provide better "conditions" lfor our players and potential players similar to what the successful clubs are doing that are ouside of the cap.
Yep the $14m player cap keeps us from winning the wooden spoon every single year, why else would Luai have come here?

The $5m football department cap only applies to your NRL coach, assistant coaches and physio/ head of performance (quite ambiguous at that).

There is so much more to it than that. How are your JF, HM teams recovering? From the bottom, all teams require the best sports science and we aren't giving them that.
 
That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that you need to create a belt of good players from your Juniors. That's what Penrith did. I agree that attracting good players comes down to connections, but that is a small % of players. I'm not talking about your top line players. I'm talking about the hundreds of players in our Juniors and the bottom 10 of our top roster that need mentoring and coaching.

Benji has attracted top line players. That's great, but a couple of top line players will not help you years down the track. It is helpful to have Luai, Api, May etc but they will not be coaching your JF team. You cannot create a successful club from top to bottom, it has to be from bottom to top.

The exception I can maybe see is Storm which rorted the cap at the top and the Big 3 set a standard in place that was followed from top to bottom. I cannot see that happening at our Club.
I dont think were in disagreement on the ingredients. Yes, more money for juniors would be great. But we've already produced great juniors. The NSW FB and half are playing for other clubs. Imagine if we had held onto Mitchell and teddy? Why did they walk? Not for money.

Our problem is retaining those talents. Its deeper than money. More juniors would be great, but we need to fix our leadership otherwise they're just going to keep walking away. Penrith did that with Gus. We were doing it with the board reform and richo.... but not now.

I only hope maka is a loyal guy and can put up with the idiocy.
 
I dont think were in disagreement on the ingredients. Yes, more money for juniors would be great. But we've already produced great juniors. The NSW FB and half are playing for other clubs. Imagine if we had held onto Mitchell and teddy? Why did they walk? Not for money.

Our problem is retaining those talents. Its deeper than money. More juniors would be great, but we need to fix our leadership otherwise they're just going to keep walking away. Penrith did that with Gus. We were doing it with the board reform and richo.... but not now.

I only hope maka is a loyal guy and can put up with the idiocy.
100% - Leadership is a key ingredient but I think mainly in the football department. The aspects outsdie of that are $, that has already been raised, and stability.
 
I dont think were in disagreement on the ingredients. Yes, more money for juniors would be great. But we've already produced great juniors. The NSW FB and half are playing for other clubs. Imagine if we had held onto Mitchell and teddy? Why did they walk? Not for money.

Our problem is retaining those talents. Its deeper than money. More juniors would be great, but we need to fix our leadership otherwise they're just going to keep walking away. Penrith did that with Gus. We were doing it with the board reform and richo.... but not now.

I only hope maka is a loyal guy and can put up with the idiocy.
I agree that we need leadership and the connections.

But, I truly believe that $$ is the main limiting factor not leadership or board room structure.

We shouldn't be relying on Teddy, Moses, Maka etc to stay loyal. We should have another 5 of them ready. The salary cap will mean that even if we are doing good for a couple of years, we will lose our Juniors.

I do agree with you that we do need players to stay loyal but 2 or 3 of them will, not 20.

As you said, we aren't disagreeing about the ingredients, but moreso the priorities of it.

Did learn a few things while discussing this though. Cheers.
 
Jolls

Appreciate all your thoughts and considerations BUT

“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”

They sacked the independent board that was obtaining positive outcomes and stability thus creating their additional responsibilities 🤦‍♂️, plus this was the responsibility before the independent board.

“A stable owner with strong finances can support a successful football program”

Prior to the independent WT board HBG fell well short of other successful clubs contributions/programs.

“If HBG consolidates authority and ends factional disputes”

Over the last 10 years HBG has thrived on disputes, sackings and mayhem within HBG, and is further reflected in WT pre independent board.

The only factional disputes are within HBG and Wests Magpies v Wests Tigers (there is effectively no Balmain Tigers)

“Worst case scenario”

Your worst case scenario outcomes captures the HBG years prior to the independent WT Board and is the likely outcome of the current setup (once they deem to advise anyone of their proposed structural setup/WT board.
 
Jolls

Appreciate all your thoughts and considerations BUT

“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”

They sacked the independent board that was obtaining positive outcomes and stability thus creating their additional responsibilities 🤦‍♂️, plus this was the responsibility before the independent board.

“A stable owner with strong finances can support a successful football program”

Prior to the independent WT board HBG fell well short of other successful clubs contributions/programs.

“If HBG consolidates authority and ends factional disputes”

Over the last 10 years HBG has thrived on disputes, sackings and mayhem within HBG, and is further reflected in WT pre independent board.

The only factional disputes are within HBG and Wests Magpies v Wests Tigers (there is effectively no Balmain Tigers)

“Worst case scenario”

Your worst case scenario outcomes captures the HBG years prior to the independent WT Board and is the likely outcome of the current setup (once they deem to advise anyone of their proposed structural setup/WT board.
Yes to all - I have tried to look at it impartially and from both points of view.

“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”. That is factual and is what HBG are putting forward as the reason. I personally don't agree with it but it is the PoV of the supporters of the pay rise.

“A stable owner with strong finances can support a successful football program”. This is also factual - Melbourne Storm, Penrith and Roosters are three long term examples where this is the case. The point being that we need stong governace to be successful - the continuation of upheaval in the governance system will not bring us results.

The only factional disputes are within HBG and Wests Magpies v Wests Tigers (there is effectively no Balmain Tigers). I get your point - but it isn't how the Media and some fans will spin it - the instability will cause us trouble down the track if it is not nipped in the bud early.

Your worst case scenario outcomes captures the HBG years prior to the independent WT Board and is the likely outcome of the current setup (once they deem to advise anyone of their proposed structural setup/WT board. Yes again, if we don't change we are destined to repaet the same follies as we have for the past decade. One of two thngs can happen to change that - HBG bring in more independents or they wake up to themselves and appoint board members that meet the requirments of the skills matrix and back the fire truck away from trying to run Wests Tigers.
 

Page 38-39. Total expenses were $73 million dollars.

I know it is very difficult to compare expenses of one team compared to another as there are a million reasons why that could differ.

But, the point is that Wests Tigers are operating at a budget of $20.7 million dollars. How much do we think the operating budget of the Broncos football department is?
The difference is that they generate that income. Their owners, shareholders, get dividends. They arnt digging into their pockets to give the club grants.
But they are a club that plays at a modern stadium, not 16k grounds.
We refuse to compete with the big clubs and most of our fans agree with that stance.
 
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.
This post just shows you don't understand what we are campaigning for.

It's funny that it is the HBG supporters that actually keep this conversation going.
 

Members online

Back
Top