HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

weststigers said:
Perhaps I could put it into perspective?

You're trying to offer an obscure viewpoint to people that have had their club systematically destroyed over a 10 year period. Maybe you're super chilled about everything, but I know you're smart enough to realise that you'd be in the minority.

All this at a time when the latest balls up is not only fresh, but developing and getting more outrageous with every news report.

if you were expecting people to engage in a rational and unemotional way to a contrarian viewpoint, that some may argue was stirring the pot, then perhaps you need to lower your expectations a little.
Click to expand...
I've actually offered very few viewpoints. Just questions.

You're right- the 'reports' are outrageous. Almost, some might suggest, inflated beyond any kind of reality.

But that's kind of the point. "Reports". The reaction has been hysterical (not funny) over some 3rd hand 'reports'. And any alternative view is unacceptable.

I am chilled out. Some "Troll-like" version of me (that was a name I missed on my roll call) enjoys trying to get people thinking in a different way. And yeah- some people are probably descended too far into the rainbow coloured mist (I'd say red mist, but want to be more inclusive) to contemplate a different view.

But if that isn't what a forum is about....I'll be damned. If I had known I was signing up for a propaganda machine instead, I'd have lowered my expectations as suggested.
 
weststigers said:
It has to do with concentration of power to unelected individuals.

It's why all these dramas keep happening.

HBG as an entity isn't really the issue, it's the governance structure that is the issue. If that goes, HBG begins to operate like a normal club with member voting and things change completely. You wouldn't need protests, you'd just cast your member vote at the AGM if you felt strongly one way or another.
Click to expand...
Sounds almost like what you're asking for is a balanced, even board. One where 2 sides offer similar input & the onus isn't on one side to prop up the other, potentially leading that side to feeling like they probably deserve a bigger say...

If ONLY someone had suggested as much previously.
 
The Chad said:
I've actually offered very few viewpoints. Just questions.

You're right- the 'reports' are outrageous. Almost, some might suggest, inflated beyond any kind of reality.

But that's kind of the point. "Reports". The reaction has been hysterical (not funny) over some 3rd hand 'reports'. And any alternative view is unacceptable.

I am chilled out. Some "Troll-like" version of me (that was a name I missed on my roll call) enjoys trying to get people thinking in a different way. And yeah- some people are probably descended too far into the rainbow coloured mist (I'd say red mist, but want to be more inclusive) to contemplate a different view.

But if that isn't what a forum is about....I'll be damned. If I had known I was signing up for a propaganda machine instead, I'd have lowered my expectations as suggested.
Click to expand...
The pitchforks are out this time Chad. They're not having it.

It'll swing back around....
 
The Chad said:
Sounds almost like what you're asking for is a balanced, even board. One where 2 sides offer similar input & the onus isn't on one side to prop up the other, potentially leading that side to feeling like they probably deserve a bigger say...

If ONLY someone had suggested as much previously.
Click to expand...
Nope...I think this is where a lot of the confusion and arguments start.

The board of the wests tigers is not what people are talking about fundamentally, although it is ultimately affected.

It is 20 unelected debenture holders at HBG.

it's not more complicated than that.

If people could vote for their chosen Wests Ashfield candidates each year to make up the owners board, like every other club, they'd be happy.

Bad management can be punished and good management rewarded.
 
weststigers said:
Nope...I think this is where a lot of the confusion and arguments start.

The board of the wests tigers is not what people are talking about fundamentally, although it is ultimately affected.

It is 20 unelected debenture holders at HBG.

it's not more complicated than that.

If people could vote for their chosen Wests Ashfield candidates each year to make up the owners board, like every other club, they'd be happy.

Bad management can be punished and good management rewarded.
Click to expand...
Those debenture holders get 1 seat on the board.

They also finance both the Wests side of the JV & the Balmain juniors.

20 holders could be 50,000. It's still only 1 seat. If we got bought out by Laundy or whoever, they'd have a seat too. Pretty sure Nick Politis has a seat at the Roosters.

What you're arguing is the make-up of Wests Ashfield, who also hold 1 seat. That should be a different forum.
 
The Chad said:
Those debenture holders get 1 seat on the board.

They also finance both the Wests side of the JV & the Balmain juniors.

20 holders could be 50,000. It's still only 1 seat. If we got bought out by Laundy or whoever, they'd have a seat too. Pretty sure Nick Politis has a seat at the Roosters.

What you're arguing is the make-up of Wests Ashfield, who also hold 1 seat. That should be a different forum.
Click to expand...
Yes thats True, but at any moment the board of Wests Ashfield can dismiss the board of Wests Tigers as they just did. So regardless of what it's 27000 members think, only 5 debenture holders that sit on the Wests Ashfield board get a say in how Wests Tigers is run even if it is against the wishes of it's members and the community which they are obligated to serve.

Secondly, the debenture holders haven't put any of their own money in to this you know that right? The assets of Wests Ashfield (HBG), including Wests Tigers are funded by the community and/or by assets purchased over time with community funds.
 
TheEnz said:
They will pump up his $, extend him and think that will take the heat off them and maybe lock bula and jerome in. What the reality will be is that they will add performance clauses that look achieveable and once the dust settles they will white ant him with shit decisions and leaks to the media so he fails and they punt him.
Click to expand...
I know right because our recent history with people under contract is so reliable.
 
WTF is going on. FFS this is just becoming a piss take now.
Apparently O'Farrell might be coming back as chairman.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]Shock Tigers backflip looms nine days after O'Farrell sacked​

​

Nic Negrepontis

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]Nic Negrepontis[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.58)]December 10, 2025 - 8.23pm[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]Share[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]
​
Mute

Loaded: 41.34%

​

Fullscreen

Richardson quits as Tigers CEO​

​

Nine days after he was sacked as Wests Tigers chairman, Barry O'Farrell is likely to make a shock return to the club, while Benji Marshall is on the verge of a contract extension.
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the move comes following a series of crisis talks between the NRL and the Tigers.
The Holman Barnes Group (HBG) sacked O'Farrell, as well as three independent directors, just over a week ago. He has now reportedly been asked to return to the role given the NRL's concerns over the state the club finds itself in
​
Page 1
Page 2
Page 4


The Tigers have finished last in three of the last four seasons, and haven't played finals since 2019.
The SMH report says O'Farrell is aware of the NRL's desire for him to return to the role.
He is yet to confirm whether he will, but is open to heading back through the doors.
Balmain champion Benny Elias was strongly linked with the role before this potential sudden backflip emerged.
The report adds that the Wests Tigers will extend the contract of coach Benji Marshall through to the end of 2029.
The Tigers and Marshall are deep in negotiations, with an extension set to be finalised.
The goal is to create stability within the struggling organisation. Shaun Mielekamp has been appointed interim chief executive.
Marshall took over as coach at the start of the 2024 season, and has won 15 of 48 games at the helm.
He played 257 games for the Tigers across two stints during his career.[/COLOR]
 
Last edited:
weststigers said:
Yes thats True, but at any moment the board of Wests Ashfield can dismiss the board of Wests Tigers as they just did. So regardless of what it's 27000 members think, only 5 debenture holders that sit on the Wests Ashfield board get a say in how Wests Tigers is run even if it is against the wishes of it's members and the community which they are obligated to serve.

Secondly, the debenture holders haven't put any of their own money in to this you know that right? The assets of Wests Ashfield (HBG), including Wests Tigers are funded by the community and/or by assets purchased over time with community funds.
Click to expand...
This goes back to the balance. Now the issue is 90%-10%.

HBG are using "HBG money". If it is their literal own, or a "collective own", the HBG members, I assume, would expect those making decisions on what to do with those funds- to do it in the HBG cause & favour. Whether it is Dennis' money or Russell Smith's is pretty much irrelevant. It's the funds of HBG, and their board, however it is made up, are entrusted to do what is best for...HBG.

The question I've asked regarding that is- if HBG feel they are being overlooked/disrespected/kept in the dark...whatever...is it not 'understandable' that they might have an issue with the Wests Tigers board & feel that removing them was an acceptable thing to do? As a member of HBG, would you not also feel....like Wests Tigers/Balmain/Wests Ashfield/Magpies 'owe' them for some of that financial aid?

People are acting like HBG are absolute evil. I'm simply offering an idea that it might be how the other side see it.
 
The Chad said:
This goes back to the balance. Now the issue is 90%-10%.

HBG are using "HBG money". If it is their literal own, or a "collective own", the HBG members, I assume, would expect those making decisions on what to do with those funds- to do it in the HBG cause & favour. Whether it is Dennis' money or Russell Smith's is pretty much irrelevant. It's the funds of HBG, and their board, however it is made up, are entrusted to do what is best for...HBG.

The question I've asked regarding that is- if HBG feel they are being overlooked/disrespected/kept in the dark...whatever...is it not 'understandable' that they might have an issue with the Wests Tigers board & feel that removing them was an acceptable thing to do? As a member of HBG, would you not also feel....like Wests Tigers/Balmain/Wests Ashfield/Magpies 'owe' them for some of that financial aid?

People are acting like HBG are absolute evil. I'm simply offering an idea that it might be how the other side see it.
Click to expand...
Balmain is irrelevant to this discussion. They have a minority share and they have always had a minority share. That is not the point.

Wests Ashfield are not “owed” anything by Wests Tigers. They owe the community. They operate under a governance structure that does not mirror any other NRL club and that lack of accountability has caused enormous instability for us. Years of indecision, infighting and contradictory leadership all trace back to a board that answers to no one.

It is not about how 20 debenture holders feel. They are not elected and they do not represent anyone. A structure that concentrates power in the hands of a small, unelected group invites personal agendas that do not align with the expectations of the broader membership.

You only need to look at the stream of awful decisions to see that. The outrage here, the fact that people are giving up their weekend to protest, the involvement of the mayor, the NRL stepping in, and the media calling it out. These are not fringe reactions. This is widespread and consistent across different groups.

Are all of them wrong? Are we all misunderstanding the situation in the exact same way? Or is it more likely that the governance model is fundamentally broken and people are finally reacting to something that has been a powderkeg for years?
 
liltiger said:
WTF is going on. FFS this is just becoming a piss take now.
Apparently O'Farrell might be coming back as chairman.


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]Shock Tigers backflip looms nine days after O'Farrell sacked​


​

Nic Negrepontis

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]Nic Negrepontis[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.58)]December 10, 2025 - 8.23pm[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]Share[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.81)]
​
Mute



Loaded: 41.34%



​

Fullscreen

Richardson quits as Tigers CEO​

​

Nine days after he was sacked as Wests Tigers chairman, Barry O'Farrell is likely to make a shock return to the club, while Benji Marshall is on the verge of a contract extension.
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the move comes following a series of crisis talks between the NRL and the Tigers.
The Holman Barnes Group (HBG) sacked O'Farrell, as well as three independent directors, just over a week ago. He has now reportedly been asked to return to the role given the NRL's concerns over the state the club finds itself in

​

Page 1
Page 2
Page 4


The Tigers have finished last in three of the last four seasons, and haven't played finals since 2019.
The SMH report says O'Farrell is aware of the NRL's desire for him to return to the role.
He is yet to confirm whether he will, but is open to heading back through the doors.
Balmain champion Benny Elias was strongly linked with the role before this potential sudden backflip emerged.
The report adds that the Wests Tigers will extend the contract of coach Benji Marshall through to the end of 2029.
The Tigers and Marshall are deep in negotiations, with an extension set to be finalised.
The goal is to create stability within the struggling organisation. Shaun Mielekamp has been appointed interim chief executive.
Marshall took over as coach at the start of the 2024 season, and has won 15 of 48 games at the helm.
He played 257 games for the Tigers across two stints during his career.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
Must have missed our 2019 finals appearance
 
weststigers said:
Balmain is irrelevant to this discussion. They have a minority share and they have always had a minority share. That is not the point.

Wests Ashfield are not “owed” anything by Wests Tigers. They owe the community. They operate under a governance structure that does not mirror any other NRL club and that lack of accountability has caused enormous instability for us. Years of indecision, infighting and contradictory leadership all trace back to a board that answers to no one.

It is not about how 20 debenture holders feel. They are not elected and they do not represent anyone. A structure that concentrates power in the hands of a small, unelected group invites personal agendas that do not align with the expectations of the broader membership.

You only need to look at the stream of awful decisions to see that. The outrage here, the fact that people are giving up their weekend to protest, the involvement of the mayor, the NRL stepping in, and the media calling it out. These are not fringe reactions. This is widespread and consistent across different groups.

Are all of them wrong? Are we all misunderstanding the situation in the exact same way? Or is it more likely that the governance model is fundamentally broken and people are finally reacting to something that has been a powderkeg for years?
Click to expand...
Excellent points.

So what changed last year?
 
The Chad said:
Excellent points.

So what changed last year?
Click to expand...
There was a protest demanding a review of governance and under pressure, they reluctantly implemented the findings. It's well documented.

Mate...people aren't missing anything. We've been living this drama for years. Some worked it out sooner than others, but after a while, you can't ignorebthe common denominator. It's very clear whats happened.

If you want to defend HBG or an obscure debenture system or play the contrarian or challenge every single negative thing about the people that have brought us down for years, then I'm not here to stop you, but your arguments aren't compelling enough to change anyone's mind.
 
weststigers said:
There was a protest demanding a review of governance and under pressure, they reluctantly implemented the findings. It's well documented.

Mate...people aren't missing anything. We've been living this drama for years. Some worked it out sooner than others, but after a while, you can't ignorebthe common denominator. It's very clear whats happened.

If you want to defend HBG or an obscure debenture system or play the contrarian or challenge every single negative thing about the people that have brought us down for years, then I'm not here to stop you, but your arguments aren't compelling enough to change anyone's mind.
Click to expand...
But they did follow through with it.

And to this point, while they have removed members of the board- they have NOT moved away from the model.

Which then takes us back to a matter of what people think they know, and what they actually know.

I know that I don't know.

Many people believe they know. And are really upset about something, maybe.
 
The Chad said:
But they did follow through with it.

And to this point, while they have removed members of the board- they have NOT moved away from the model.

Which then takes us back to a matter of what people think they know, and what they actually know.

I know that I don't know.

Many people believe they know. And are really upset about something, maybe.
Click to expand...
What makes you think they didn't move away from the independent board model?

Was it removing the independent board?
 
tig_prmz said:
Even with coercion or threat of not renewing license, what would you want NRL to do?

I value your opinion hence why I'm asking you what does the governance structure look like in an ideal scenario?
Click to expand...
Loosing the license would be huge.
They could also threaten to suspend the tigers for X years. This would also be huge.

Were getting to the point where people who are very external to the club are taking interest. Bad things can happen.
 
weststigers said:
What makes you think they didn't move away from the independent board model?

Was it removing the independent board?
Click to expand...
They absolutely removed the independent board members. For reasons that they seem to believe are reasonable (which unless you like circles- we'll agree have been covered).

What they have not done or said is- the independent board member model doesn't work.

As I asked for the last couple of days- if 4 new independents & a new CEO are put in place, is the hysteria warranted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,148 (members: 35, guests: 1,113)
Back
Top