HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

weststigers said:
It's only vague when you don't explain what specifically denigrates the Magpies. Still waiting for that...
Click to expand...
Its been a week without answers from any of them.

They must fear HBG losing their share and it passing to an independent owner who doesn't have the interests of the west magpies at heart - but the interest of the Wests tigers.

There in lies the problem - they should be supportive of this... We are a joint venture.. but they only have their self serving interests at heart.. and want control... Mu h like hbg
 
mtd#2 said:
I've probably been one of the more active members during the last week and I haven't seen anyone suggest we get rid of the Wests magpies part of the venture (the football club, the junior catchment etc).. everyone just wants HBG out.

You are spinning the same narrative as others on here suggesting there's a plot against the Wests Magpies side of the venture, yet the HBG are the ones who are pushing for the division...

Unless you can be more specific as to what's being suggested and how exactly we are trying to dismantle the Wests side of the venture, then you're talking out your backside
Click to expand...
Sorry dude, but YOU are the one that's spinning the narrative as HBG and WESTS MAGPIES are 2 parts of one whole.
You try to turn things around by saying 'it's not the MAGPIES we want gone, it's HBG,>>> b/s.
It's a sneaky tactic of wanting to get rid of the Magpies by using dishonest terminology.
 
mtd#2 said:
I've probably been one of the more active members during the last week and I haven't seen anyone suggest we get rid of the Wests magpies part of the venture (the football club, the junior catchment etc).. everyone just wants HBG out.

You are spinning the same narrative as others on here suggesting there's a plot against the Wests Magpies side of the venture, yet the HBG are the ones who are pushing for the division...

Unless you can be more specific as to what's being suggested and how exactly we are trying to dismantle the Wests side of the venture, then you're talking out your backside
Click to expand...

Easy matey,

Seen your posts talking about re inventing the Wests tigers minus the inner west and just with Macauthur.

That is a new identity again.
 
LiverpoolTiger said:
Actually here is 1, a moderator guy.
Post in thread 'CEO - Shane Richardson' https://weststigersforum.com/threads/ceo-shane-richardson.35365/post-2208071

And, there are many others.
Click to expand...
Cover blown. Fellas...she's onto us! It's the secret Balmain agenda forum to take control of the club. 🤣

You're all paranoid. Seems like projection because bringing back the Magpies is the aim of the morons in charge...

And I can't believe I even need to say this, but when I say morons, I mean the individuals. Not Wests as a whole.

Further, you seem awfully worried about 1 or 2 comments which makes you feel like 200 comments, but been on Facebook lately? the Balmain side gets comments like that too. Most sane fans shrug it off. There's always going to be die hards.
 
weststigers said:
Cover blown. Fellas...she's onto us! It's the secret Balmain agenda forum to take control of the club. 🤣

You're all paranoid. Seems like projection because bringing back the Magpies is the aim of the morons in charge...

And I can't believe I even need to say this, but when I say morons, I mean the individuals. Not Wests as a whole.

Further, you seem awfully worried about 1 or 2 comments which makes you feel like 200 comments, but been on Facebook lately? the Balmain side gets comments like that too. Most sane fans shrug it off. There's always going to be die hards.
Click to expand...

Do you work?

You must have an agenda with all your posts.

Night and day.

Must be really invested
 
BZN said:
Sorry dude, but YOU are the one that's spinning the narrative as HBG and WESTS MAGPIES are 2 parts of one whole.
You try to turn things around by saying 'it's not the MAGPIES we want gone, it's HBG,>>> b/s.
It's a sneaky tactic of wanting to get rid of the Magpies by using dishonest terminology.
Click to expand...
Thank you bzn.. you have just reinforced everything the bulk of us have been thinking..

You are projecting your own insecurities into a conspiracy theory that theres a plot to overthrow the magpies.

You're concerned that the JV becomes the priority and not the Wests magpies (which is the way under HBG).

Not all of us are like the HBG directors. We just want what's best for the club as a joint venture.. not as Wests and not as Balmain.. the sooner you realise the bulk of us aren't dinosaurs with agendas, the sooner you will realise that the intent from all of this is good.

I've said it myself, id prefer Wests McArthur take ownership.. give them 90%.. most of us would probably agree it's the right play... So how is that a secret sneaky agenda? I look forward to your response specifically to this part of my post - because someone with a sneaky agenda trying to spin it, wouldn't then advocate for Wests McArthur, would they?

But thanks for responding.. I suggest you consider taking a few steps back and realise the bulk of us come from a good place, no one is trying to over throw Wests... Just HBG...
 
weststigers said:
No doubt about it...I think that is universally agreed.

I don't think PVL did overlook that. We can be certain of one thing. The destruction of the board was the catalyst for the NRL getting involved.

If it is in fact true that the stadium details were withheld despite there being HBG members on the board, I doubt the NRL or the independent directors would have any leg to stand on. I certainly don't think they'd have a legal case either as was being considered.

So if we follow your theory that something must have happened for HBG to react in the way they did and were absolutely right to do so, the question remains, why not just dig your heels in rather than invite them back via an arm twist from the NRL?
Click to expand...
That's a good question.

What if.....go with me on this....HBG understood AFTER removing the board members/PVL intervention that the independents were not directly responsible?

Or, what if there wasn't enough evidence to say they were responsible for setting up deals beyond the HBG view.

As a hypothetical - Richo & his good mate O'Farrell put together a 15 year plan for Leichardt off their own back, & have it set up, prior to letting HBG in on it?

Or just as hypothetical, Richo set up the deal with no board intervention.

Less hypothetical- HBG even alluded to this the other day through Leo E.

With these things 'happening', PVL steps in & convinces HBG that O'Farrell & Co will play nice & that Richo need not return etc & then....wait for it....HBG think "well, they were not so bad to deal with outside this issue we had..."
 
mtd#2 said:
Thank you bzn.. you have just reinforced everything the bulk of us have been thinking..

You are projecting your own insecurities into a conspiracy theory that theres a plot to overthrow the magpies.

You're concerned that the JV becomes the priority and not the Wests magpies (which is the way under HBG).

Not all of us are like the HBG directors. We just want what's best for the club as a joint venture.. not as Wests and not as Balmain.. the sooner you realise the bulk of us aren't dinosaurs with agendas, the sooner you will realise that the intent from all of this is good.

I've said it myself, id prefer Wests McArthur take ownership.. give them 90%.. most of us would probably agree it's the right play... So how is that a secret sneaky agenda?

But thanks for responding.. I suggest you consider taking a few steps back and realise the bulk of us come from a good place, no one is trying to over throw Wests... Just HBG...
Click to expand...
Mate there must have been 100 signs today that said.

Wests Tigers
Not Balmain
Not Wests

Can't get any clearer than that. And we have people talking about Balmain paraphernalia, the sign states our position beautifully.
 
The Chad said:
That's a good question.

What if.....go with me on this....HBG understood AFTER removing the board members/PVL intervention that the independents were not directly responsible?

Or, what if there wasn't enough evidence to say they were responsible for setting up deals beyond the HBG view.

As a hypothetical - Richo & his good mate O'Farrell put together a 15 year plan for Leichardt off their own back, & have it set up, prior to letting HBG in on it?

Or just as hypothetical, Richo set up the deal with no board intervention.

Less hypothetical- HBG even alluded to this the other day through Leo E.

With these things 'happening', PVL steps in & convinces HBG that O'Farrell & Co will play nice & that Richo need not return etc & then....wait for it....HBG think "well, they were not so bad to deal with outside this issue we had..."
Click to expand...
Wouldn't a well run organisation have worked that out before sacking people and tarnishing their professional reputation?
 
LiverpoolTiger said:
Do you work?

You must have an agenda with all your posts.

Night and day.

Must be really invested
Click to expand...
Do you have a problem with my questions or with my post count? You seem to have gone off topic

Just wondering if anyone else has noticed every last one of these seemingly individual posters with exactly the same talking points seems to duck and evade answering anything directly?

Give us some credit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 597 (members: 6, guests: 591)
Back
Top