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.
 
There's also a cap on the Football Dept spending guys. If HBG isn't helping us spend up to the cap, then we have a problem. But I assume they are.
I find that hard to believe when other clubs are utilising specialist coaches. Then again, maybe we just mismanage the budget. Maybe someone in the know could let us know.
 
I find that hard to believe when other clubs are utilising specialist coaches. Then again, maybe we just mismanage the budget. Maybe someone in the know could let us know.
Our coaching dept definitely lacks, but we made a profit last year..
Maybe the budget was in terrible state that Richardson had to beat back into shape.
 
I find that hard to believe when other clubs are utilising specialist coaches. Then again, maybe we just mismanage the budget. Maybe someone in the know could let us know.
They're typically halves or kicking coaches. We have Benji and Hodgo, even J Mo for halves. Richards maybe helps with kicking too. So maybe they felt it wasn't needed or there might be conflict with direction.
 
Our coaching dept definitely lacks, but we made a profit last year..
Maybe the budget was in terrible state that Richardson had to beat back into shape.
Richo was always going on about running on Rump steak, not fillet. But I has previously put that down to a demand from HBG to start to run a profit, not thinking about spending up to the cap.

Maybe HBG have forced richo to run the football dept for less?
 
Richo was always going on about running on Rump steak, not fillet. But I has previously put that down to a demand from HBG to start to run a profit, not thinking about spending up to the cap.

Maybe HBG have forced richo to run the football dept for less?
I dunno, he called them generous on a few occasions. In his recent podcast he seems to think that you should be able to run a successful club considering the size of the NRL grant.
I just think asking for money from the owners is just lazy when they can be generating more income themselves.
 
Richo was always going on about running on Rump steak, not fillet. But I has previously put that down to a demand from HBG to start to run a profit, not thinking about spending up to the cap.

Maybe HBG have forced richo to run the football dept for less?
Richo made it a point to earn a profit so they didn’t have to rely on HBG and could run independently.
 
I dunno, he called them generous on a few occasions. In his recent podcast he seems to think that you should be able to run a successful club considering the size of the NRL grant.
I just think asking for money from the owners is just lazy when they can be generating more income themselves.
He's right. But revenue is also dependent on the club's status and membership. It depends on whether an investment is needed to help us rise and wash off years of cellar dwelling.

Lazy is a tough call when the league's clubs exist purely to fund football clubs. But I get your point. Clubs need to maximise revenue first and foremost - although, it didn't get Richo far! Apparently, he was spending too much on content generation, a key revenue driver.
 
I dunno, he called them generous on a few occasions. In his recent podcast he seems to think that you should be able to run a successful club considering the size of the NRL grant.
I just think asking for money from the owners is just lazy when they can be generating more income themselves.
Shaun made a very clear point at the forum I attended and it was based offhis experience at Penrith. The Penrith Group went from begrudgingly providing funds to the football department and whinging about the "finacial drain" to willingly forking out $9M and asking how they could be of more help. He used this analogy to show where we are at the moment - owners who see the club as a financial drain holding back their future plans.

I expect phase 1 of the plan was to demonstrate that the football department could bring in a profit (achieved) and no longer be a financial anchor with phase 2 being the coversion fo HBG from owners of WT to raving fans of WT wanting to pour money into the club as it benfits the business overall (more members - more cash flow etc.)

SM described it as changing they dynamic from us (WT) v them (HBG) to WE andd that is how he plans to achieve phase 2.
 
I dunno, he called them generous on a few occasions. In his recent podcast he seems to think that you should be able to run a successful club considering the size of the NRL grant.
I just think asking for money from the owners is just lazy when they can be generating more income themselves.
You can run an NRL club with that grant. It is exactly $19m ($14m for players and $5m for support staff).

You need a lot more money than that to run a successful club and entire football department IMO.
 
Richo made it a point to earn a profit so they didn’t have to rely on HBG and could run independently.
Every NRL club made a profit as the grant from NRL increased significantly.

Every NRL club will invest that money back into their pathways, some into CoEs, some into Women's comps etc.
 
Shaun made a very clear point at the forum I attended and it was based offhis experience at Penrith. The Penrith Group went from begrudgingly providing funds to the football department and whinging about the "finacial drain" to willingly forking out $9M and asking how they could be of more help. He used this analogy to show where we are at the moment - owners who see the club as a financial drain holding back their future plans.

I expect phase 1 of the plan was to demonstrate that the football department could bring in a profit (achieved) and no longer be a financial anchor with phase 2 being the coversion fo HBG from owners of WT to raving fans of WT wanting to pour money into the club as it benfits the business overall (more members - more cash flow etc.)

SM described it as changing they dynamic from us (WT) v them (HBG) to WE andd that is how he plans to achieve phase 2.
I hope Shaun is good at that, but I personally believe the Board and the Chairman should do more of that than the CEO.

Shaun can hopefully focus more on the day to day running, getting sponsors and utilising the funds.
 
I hope Shaun is good at that, but I personally believe the Board and the Chairman should do more of that than the CEO.

Shaun can hopefully focus more on the day to day running, getting sponsors and utilising the funds.
100% that is the function of BOF and the board - but it will need to be a more surgical approach now that most of the board are "them". SM was simply outlining the "plan"
 
So the public ever get the chance to ask these clowns questions?

Or are they off limits?
WT board or HBG?

WT is difficult as it is internal to the wider HBG structure but the conduit for WT members is through the membership team or SM. I don't think there is a way to get directly to the board.

HBG I think the only way is to be a member of the organisation then as a member you have a right to question them. You don't have voting rights, as useless as they are, for three years though, and then only if you are approved to become a general member.

I became a member of HBG for that exact reason; I have yet to test the system though. At $23 for ten years I will get my money back when I cash in my $20 meal voucher one day. The only trouble being with the price of fuel the $150 I will spend getting there for a feed! 🤣 🤣 🤣
 
Last edited:
How many ‘plans’ have been upended in the last 10 years. It’s hard not to be sceptical.
I am very sceptical and if you read the analysis I did a the other day the worst case scenario is if we continue to run the way wer were run the ten years prior to now as all of the good work will be undone very quickly.

HBG surely have to come to the realisation that what Richo was doing worked, even if they tore their party dresses because of a perceived communication issue. I can't believe that all of the debenture holders are oblivoius to what is happening around them. SM indicated that he was looking forward to working with "some" the new board members (yet to be announced to the unwashed). So I trust that at least appointments are being made against a skills matrix.

I think the approach of going from "us" v "them" to we is sound. We don't necessarily need outside intervention to achieve a good outcome - we do need BOF and SM to work the board and the HBG board to get them to realise that a strong WT will benefit HBG overall and that WM v BT v WT is not only counterproductive it is childish and pathetic!
 
Last edited:
Shaun made a very clear point at the forum I attended and it was based offhis experience at Penrith. The Penrith Group went from begrudgingly providing funds to the football department and whinging about the "finacial drain" to willingly forking out $9M and asking how they could be of more help. He used this analogy to show where we are at the moment - owners who see the club as a financial drain holding back their future plans.

I expect phase 1 of the plan was to demonstrate that the football department could bring in a profit (achieved) and no longer be a financial anchor with phase 2 being the coversion fo HBG from owners of WT to raving fans of WT wanting to pour money into the club as it benfits the business overall (more members - more cash flow etc.)

SM described it as changing they dynamic from us (WT) v them (HBG) to WE andd that is how he plans to achieve phase 2.
Thats a great vision (fantasy) of Shaun's.. But you cant compare the two. Penrith have always been one entity. We have two foundation clubs at the core.

NRL and KOE fare playing at different venues, 20 mins from each other, sometimes on the same day, .. i assume all because its Wests Magpies and not Wests Tigers. They want to maintain the Wests Magpies days at lidcombe for all of the lower grades with KOE being the main event.

This is nothing like Penrith.

P.S. do the hbg directors go to wests magpies or wests tigers games when they are played on the same day?
 

Attachments

  • 42204.jpg
    42204.jpg
    152.7 KB · Views: 4
Thats a great vision (fantasy) of Shaun's.. But you cant compare the two. Penrith have always been one entity. We have two foundation clubs at the core.

NRL and KOE fare playing at different venues, 20 mins from each other, sometimes on the same day, .. i assume all because its Wests Magpies and not Wests Tigers. They want to maintain the Wests Magpies days at lidcombe for all of the lower grades with KOE being the main event.

This is nothing like Penrith.

P.S. do the hbg directors go to wests magpies or wests tigers games when they are played on the same day?
Definitley not the same as the Riff, but that was not the point I was making. It is the transformation of the owners from seeing WT as a financial burden to giving us money and considering us as an asset at the same time.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the scheduling at Lidcombe, but suspect it is probably driven by Wests Magpies for the reasons you outlined. As for which game they attend - probably depends on where the centre of gravity lies with the debenture holders as that is the entity that gets you elected and your new blazer.
 

Members online

Back
Top