My 2c on the matter.
There is a lot of speculation about what's going on inside the heads of the HBG. I wager quite a lot of it is on the money but also without context it is not so easy to see their agenda.
There are a lot of possible permutations as to how we have arrived here. And we are short on facts.
The saga dates back quite a ways. Some things to consider include looking back at how Wests Campbelltown left the merger. Ironically it was because Ashfield kept voting with Balmain.
People like Dennis Burgess are old Magpies tragics it's true. And as the Macarthur region expands and with full control I am sure fantasies of restoration are often on the minds of such people. Who could really blame them? He's not long for the world and when you get to that point you become bolder about wanting to get some of your dreams realised before you drop off. It is what it is.
But whether he or they actually can, or are actually genuinely trying is a different thing altogether. An old man or three saying it with a gutful of pinot gris doesn't make an agenda. People say random things all the time. Memetics does funny things though now with instant online communications. Guys like Dennis don't understand that barstool talk can become a problem.
Which is to say that even the most charitable reading of the situation here still doesn't favour the HBG. As I've pointed out on the Faithful podcast and on socials the HBG simply are unequipped to run the club. Set aside conjecture about agenda and look at the reality. The HBG debenture system is undemocratic, easily stacked and factionalised, doesn't contain any kind of standards for membership and they have a track record of insecurity driven decision making that is not conducive with stability. They are the Borderline Personality Disorder of NRL owners.
All you have to do is look at their website and foundational principles. The debenture system, which they are proud of, is a protectionist concept. This is intentional. For whatever reason back then the debenture system was quite literally designed to prevent takeovers and coups. That is it's foundational purpose and it's mandate.
How can an organisation whose strict reason for it's structure is protectionism from takeover ever allow any of it's assets to be managed independently? Especially by a guy like Shane Richardson who is a life member of a Brisbane club with the same branding as ours that as recently of inside the last 5 years tried to enter the NRL with a bid led by ... Shane Richardson?
If I was Dennis and co. I'd have been paranoid about him from day 1. Rightly or wrongly.
Is Shane Richardson actually trying to make moves to benefit himself? Almost certainly. That is what it means to be successful. You do things to further your own aims. Shane has not even been reserved about it either having signed questionable footballers to contracts simply because they are clients of the agency he runs. He has been called out about this. Beyond that though it's mostly conjecture, and the moves he's made visibly have all been great from a neutral standpoint.
Well unfortunately when you are dealing with a protectionist mob who deep down wish we were the Magpies it doesn't take much to trigger paranoia. This is, once again, just cause and effect.
I think the important thing to note here is that the HBG are lying still. The claim that they were not being briefed by the board is literally impossible given they had 2 appointees on it and also are more aligned with Balmain now than ever so really three. The HBG actually own and operate the only Balmain Tigers Leagues Club that still trades. Further to that the independent recruiter that was tapped to find the 4 independent directors was fired before completion. Two of the four were appointed by Holman Barnes. The inquiry instructed HBG to appoint a fully independent board and let go of control in perpetuity. This never occurred and never will. It defied the HBGs core principle.
The dismissal of the board can easily be nothing more than them wanting control back. Most likely because they can and feel like they should. There's something serious to be said about ownership having direct (and useful) influence over management of the team though. I have stated before that the football team being run without an ultimate beneficial owner having actual direct say and skin in the game makes it harder for us to compete with clubs that do have that. In that way I wasn't really all that supportive of the idea of the independent board anyway. It improved things though because we had some stability and because some other clubs had really bad years. It would have been nice to see year 2 but alas we will not.
But even saying that once the decision was made and given the instability of the past 13 years the HBG had no option whatsoever other than to do nothing. They had played themselves into that position and with the club improving could under no circumstances do anything but leave it alone. That was the only reasonable choice. It doesn't matter what they want or what I think is a better model. For the benefit of the players, team employees, on field results, the fans and their own reputation they had to leave it alone.
And simply in doing the opposite, without any other facts to bear, they demonstrate their incompetence in one final Earth shattering blow to the club.
It has been my view for quite some time that the Holman Barnes Group cannot be the owner of a successful NRL team. That makes clear what I think has to happen. If the NRL cannot legally do so and the HBG continue to run this club there is no use whatsoever in supporting it.
But sports fandom is a sickness so it's easier said than done hey.
