HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

[BZN]

Yes they loaned $100 to the HBG, they actually earn interest on this.

HBG has a 7 seat board, those 20 debenture holders get 5 seats on the HBG board. The general membership gets 2.

To make things worse, the last 2 general membership voted directors were sacked by the rest of the board.

This is not how I want my club ran.

You just don't get it you buffoon.

HBG/WESTS/WESTS MAGPIES is NOT YOURS.

Wests being in control of 90% of our club and a bunch of ungrateful rebels only 10% means WESTS ARE THE LANDLORD AND EVERYONE ELSE IS ONLY A TENNANT.
MOST LANDLORDS WON'T TOLERATE TENNANTS THAT CAUSE TROUBLE SO THE TENNANT SOON FINDS THEMSELVES HOMELESS AND LIVING ON CHARITY.
BUT WAIT, THERES MORE, WESTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHARITABLE, SO THAT OPTION IS NO LONGER THERE AND THE TENNANT KNOWS THIS.
THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE NOW IS TO BECOME SQUATTERS.
BUT, TO BE A SUCCESSFUL SQUATTER WE HAVE TO STORM THE RAMPARTS AND BE PREPARED TO SPILL BLOOD TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONTROL, AND THE UNFRIENDLY LANDLORD IS BANNISHED FOREVER.

 

[cochise]

You just don't get it you buffoon.

HBG/WESTS/WESTS MAGPIES is NOT YOURS.

Wests being in control of 90% of our club and a bunch of ungrateful rebels only 10% means WESTS ARE THE LANDLORD AND EVERYONE ELSE IS ONLY A TENNANT.
MOST LANDLORDS WON'T TOLERATE TENNANTS THAT CAUSE TROUBLE SO THE TENNANT SOON FINDS THEMSELVES HOMELESS AND LIVING ON CHARITY.
BUT WAIT, THERES MORE, WESTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHARITABLE, SO THAT OPTION IS NO LONGER THERE AND THE TENNANT KNOWS THIS.
THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE NOW IS TO BECOME SQUATTERS.
BUT, TO BE A SUCCESSFUL SQUATTER WE HAVE TO STORM THE RAMPARTS AND BE PREPARED TO SPILL BLOOD TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONTROL, AND THE UNFRIENDLY LANDLORD IS BANNISHED FOREVER.

But it is mine, they are owned by the members, I am a member.

Are you a member?

 

[weststigers]

I'm not sure it needs to be that covert.

HBG's first complaint was (kind of)- they were not being included in business decisions at a board level.

The reaction was to remove the board not aligned with HBG.

PVL interviews those board members.

Richo resigns (with an investigation over his head- still unresolved). More rumour/detail comes out that the business decisions were related to the deals around stadiums going forward- deals that Richo negotiated- not the board.

PVL meets HBG & the independents are offered their roles back.

Richo is not asked to return. Mielekamp replaces him.

Kade7 comes out & suggests Richo isn't as clean as he paints himself- Kade7's rumours are generally pretty solid.

I suggested a few days ago that the board removal could have been HBG reacting on poor information & PVL, after hearing both sides, negotiated the return & that the HBG beef might have been with Richo's dealings instead.

People make mistakes. Moving the board on- could have been a case of a mistake on where the blame lay.

The question that bothers a few people now is- why would O'Farrell etc even agree to come back? If, during the PVL negotiation, HBG realised their error & accepted fault on that- couldn't that take the sting out?

Richo remains sidelined. I think Richo was the cause of the HBG complaint.

Thread 'Tigers eye permanent move back to spiritual homes at Leichhardt, Campbelltown' https://weststigersforum.com/thread...itual-homes-at-leichhardt-campbelltown.33153/

The stadium strategy that was implemented has been spoken about since 2022 when Pascoe was here.

I find it really odd this would be a legitimate reason to blow up the board.

There's a huge weight of evidence against the comment that Paton made about this. He was typically vague about what the precise beef was, but they were certainly aware about the stadium strategy.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

Its funny, when i first saw HBGout on the posts, my mind instantly saw it as HBGout, which is quite fitting. Gout is described as a painful form of inflammatory arthritis. HBG perfectly summarised.

I almost posted the same thing haha

 

[TigerJunior4]

I used to follow the magpies before Wests Tigers - i only watch them now as a Wests Tigers reserve grade side - i bet half the people wanting them gone don't even watch or associate with reserve grade. i don't get what the gripe to get rid of them is about - changing the name is certainly not going to magically transform them in to a powerhouse of reserve grade.

It’s not going to magically transform them into a successful side but it is embolic of the fact that, as a club, we can’t be get over the past and escape the continual infighting since we became a JV.

We’re the Wests Tigers and our feeder clubs should reflect that.

In my opinion having them play at Lidcombe is more of a concern. I’d be ok if they were called the Magpies and played out of Campbelltown every week. The Lidcombe Oval decision just screams as if some old guys are trying to re-live the 1970s.

Ideally they would be called Wests Tigers and play in SW/Macarthur region for every home game. Makes sense given the clubs strategic plan about building our presence and investing in that area.

 

[BZN]

Sorry paying $100 does not give yiu the right to ruin my club. That is why we are taking action.

Sorry, but all you people WHO'S SIDE OF OUR JV PUT ZERO in toward the running of Wests Tigers and being propped up by the 90% stake holder since day 1 basically, don't have the right to demand how our club is run.
IN ANY RELATIONSHIP, PARTNERSHIP OR JV, IF YOU WANT TO BE RESPECTED YOU HAVE TO EARN IT, AS IT WONT BE JUST HANDED TO YOU ON A PLATE.
AND THE ACTION YOU ARE ALL TAKING ATM WILL ONLY RESULT IN A BIGGER WEDGE BEING DRIVEN BETWEEN THE JV PARTNERS CAUSING A CONTINUATION AND HEIGHTENING OF DISCONTENT.
AND I'M PREDICTING PVL WILL BE FORCED TO STEP IN EVENTUALLY AND DISSOLVE THE JV.

 

[Vicious]

It’s not going to magically transform them into a successful side but it is embolic of the fact that, as a club, we can’t be get over the past and escape the continual infighting since we became a JV.

We’re the Wests Tigers and our feeder clubs should reflect that.

In my opinion having them play at Lidcombe is more of a concern. I’d be ok if they were called the Magpies and played out of Campbelltown every week. The Lidcombe Oval decision just screams as if some old guys are trying to re-live the 1970s.

Ideally they would be called Wests Tigers and play in SW/Macarthur region for every home game. Makes sense given the clubs strategic plan about building our presence and investing in that area.

In a perfect world yes we would just change our feeder team to Wests Tigers to be in sync with the NRL team.
When the organisation with a 90% controlling interest and who have poured millions of dollars into the club is wanting our feeder team to remain unchanged as Wests Magpies to represent their history, it is disrespectful to totally dismiss this request which makes no difference to the success of Wests Tigers NRL team.

 

[Dr_Ice]

It might be our players but it isn’t WT in Cup it’s a different name and a different team. It doesn’t show unity which is why I think 99% of people want us playing under WT in Cup. Can you honestly say you’ve seen a real big crowd under the Magpies name for us in Cup? I know I haven’t. But I haven’t been to every Cup game.

I have been to stand alone reserve grade games since the merger (including when we had 2 teams) and can honestly say I have never seen a big crowd under any of our names, including when we were called Wests Tigers.

 

[Vicious]

I have been to stand alone reserve grade games since the merger (including when we had 2 teams) and can honestly say I have never seen a big crowd under any of our names, including when we were called Wests Tigers.

Correct.
We could link up and call our feeder team Newtown Jets like many other NRL teams have done successfully over the past few years and it makes absolutely no difference to our NRL team.
The people who are making a fuss over the 90% shareholders wanting our feeder team to remain as Wests Magpies are just being difficult and wanting to cause conflict.

 

[Dr_Ice]

Obviously I can’t speak for everyone but the ones that I have spoken to about it have all said the same thing, they don’t go to Cup games because it isn’t WT. They’ve only followed WT and can’t support a team that isn’t called that. Obviously the ones prior to the merge might see it differently, but they can’t support our feeder side being a different name.

I have made this point a couple of times before.

I go to support the reserve grade team that is clearly the feeder club to the Wests Tigers NRL team.

I have been to Magpies, Balmain, BRET etc when we had 2 teams, when we were called Wests Tigers and now called Wests Magpies.

You even said in your last line “our feeder side”. If people are aware it is our feeder team, never understood why they can’t support it.

I am sure some will now bring up the HBG divide

 

[Vicious]

I have made this point a couple of times before.

I go to support the reserve grade team that is clearly the feeder club to the Wests Tigers NRL team.

I have been to both Magpies, Balmain, BRET etc when we had 2 teams, when we were called Wests Tigers and now called Wests Magpies.

You even said in your last line “our feeder side”. If people are aware it is our feeder team, never understood why they can’t support it.

I am sure some will now bring up the HBG divide

It is 💯 agenda driven, just a reason for some people to try and put the boot into HBG yet again for something that is so trivial and has no bearing on the onfield success of Wests Tigers.

 

[mtd#2]

Talking out of your backside would be a great stage act, just like the bloke that used to fart different tunes.
Then for a grand finale that used to bring the curtain down, or was that burn the curtain down, he'd set fire to his last fart.

Sounds like you've been smelling too many of your own farts. Might be time to get off the pokies and head outside, get some fresh air.

 

[cktiger]

You just don't get it you buffoon.

HBG/WESTS/WESTS MAGPIES is NOT YOURS.

Wests being in control of 90% of our club and a bunch of ungrateful rebels only 10% means WESTS ARE THE LANDLORD AND EVERYONE ELSE IS ONLY A TENNANT.
MOST LANDLORDS WON'T TOLERATE TENNANTS THAT CAUSE TROUBLE SO THE TENNANT SOON FINDS THEMSELVES HOMELESS AND LIVING ON CHARITY.
BUT WAIT, THERES MORE, WESTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHARITABLE, SO THAT OPTION IS NO LONGER THERE AND THE TENNANT KNOWS THIS.
THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE NOW IS TO BECOME SQUATTERS.
BUT, TO BE A SUCCESSFUL SQUATTER WE HAVE TO STORM THE RAMPARTS AND BE PREPARED TO SPILL BLOOD TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONTROL, AND THE UNFRIENDLY LANDLORD IS BANNISHED FOREVER.

You're the one who doesn't get it.
The licence for the WestsTigers is owned by the NRL... they are the landlords and can kick unruly tenants like the HBG out whenever they please... and put new tenants in place.
Which is exactly what they've told them they will do.
Now we wait with baited breath to see just how stupid Dennis and HBG are.

 

[Jolls]

Sorry, but all you people WHO'S SIDE OF OUR JV PUT ZERO in toward the running of Wests Tigers and being propped up by the 90% stake holder since day 1 basically, don't have the right to demand how our club is run.
IN ANY RELATIONSHIP, PARTNERSHIP OR JV, IF YOU WANT TO BE RESPECTED YOU HAVE TO EARN IT, AS IT WONT BE JUST HANDED TO YOU ON A PLATE.
AND THE ACTION YOU ARE ALL TAKING ATM WILL ONLY RESULT IN A BIGGER WEDGE BEING DRIVEN BETWEEN THE JV PARTNERS CAUSING A CONTINUATION AND HEIGHTENING OF DISCONTENT.
AND I'M PREDICTING PVL WILL BE FORCED TO STEP IN EVENTUALLY AND DISSOLVE THE JV.

BZN,

I understand you are frustrated, but you are on a tangent here. This has nothing to do with Balmain v Wests or squatters wanting to drive what the landlords do. The whole push is for competent governance of Wests Tigers.

I think you will find that most people couldn't give a rats if Balmain has a seat on the board or not, although it is a nice nod to our historic roots. It also wouldn't matter if Wests had 9 seats to Balmain's 1 to make the numbers work for the die hards IF the governance was fixed.

The issue is, and always has been, that the debenture holders, who make up less than 1% of the club's membership, have ALL of the decsion making power.

The new situation, with a few independenst a Balmain rep, and a majority of HBG appointees does not change the situation. It is still jobs for the anointed - who are not selected on skills or expereince - they are gifted their positions through a nepotistic governance arrangement.

IF members were given a vote and their elected members made appropriate decisions on their behalf then it would be fine. It isn't fine though, and the 15 years of below par performances attest to it. The evidence is irrefutable.

It was clearly demonstrated that the independent board makes much better business and footballing decsions because the individuals are appropriately qualified and, one would hope, making frank and fearless desisions for the betterment of the club.

The previous regime, and potentially the one that has just been put in place, will receive frank and fearless advice but, based on historc precedent, will choose to do what is best for the debenture holders - not the club.

Take off the Wests glasses, put on your Wests Tigers ones and look at the situation without prejudice and you will see the facts staring you in the face.

 

[TigerJunior4]

In a perfect world yes we would just change our feeder team to Wests Tigers to be in sync with the NRL team.
When the organisation with a 90% controlling interest and who have poured millions of dollars into the club is wanting our feeder team to remain unchanged as Wests Magpies to represent their history, it is disrespectful to totally dismiss this request which makes no difference to the success of Wests Tigers NRL team.

It’s not disrespectful at all to point out the strategic and branding flaws of the club.

I’d also say that having 90% ownership doesn’t absolve you of criticism especially if you choose to run the brand and image of the club into the ground because of personal memories and connections to the Magpies of the 70’s.

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

I have made this point a couple of times before.

I go to support the reserve grade team that is clearly the feeder club to the Wests Tigers NRL team.

I have been to Magpies, Balmain, BRET etc when we had 2 teams, when we were called Wests Tigers and now called Wests Magpies.

You even said in your last line “our feeder side”. If people are aware it is our feeder team, never understood why they can’t support it.

I am sure some will now bring up the HBG divide

I think the main reason why anyone mentions a single identity through grades is they’ve just had enough of every year talking about division.

 

[TigerJunior4]

You just don't get it you buffoon.

HBG/WESTS/WESTS MAGPIES is NOT YOURS.

Wests being in control of 90% of our club and a bunch of ungrateful rebels only 10% means WESTS ARE THE LANDLORD AND EVERYONE ELSE IS ONLY A TENNANT.
MOST LANDLORDS WON'T TOLERATE TENNANTS THAT CAUSE TROUBLE SO THE TENNANT SOON FINDS THEMSELVES HOMELESS AND LIVING ON CHARITY.
BUT WAIT, THERES MORE, WESTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHARITABLE, SO THAT OPTION IS NO LONGER THERE AND THE TENNANT KNOWS THIS.
THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE NOW IS TO BECOME SQUATTERS.
BUT, TO BE A SUCCESSFUL SQUATTER WE HAVE TO STORM THE RAMPARTS AND BE PREPARED TO SPILL BLOOD TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONTROL, AND THE UNFRIENDLY LANDLORD IS BANNISHED FOREVER.

This comment typifies exactly what is wrong with the Wests Tigers, HBG, the HBG debenture holders and HBG loyalists.

It also shows where your loyalty lies. Not with the Wests Tigers but the HBG, who have consistently failed in their duties to make the Wests Tigers club into a professional, successful sporting organisation.

Just drop the pretence. You’re a HBG sycophant. You don’t support the Wests Tigers so I don’t even know why bother posting here.

 

[Dr_Ice]

I think the main reason why anyone mentions a single identity through grades is they’ve just had enough of every year talking about division.

My preference is also a single name from Flegg up, however that does not stop me supporting the feeder team when it is not.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

You just don't get it you buffoon.

HBG/WESTS/WESTS MAGPIES is NOT YOURS.

Wests being in control of 90% of our club and a bunch of ungrateful rebels only 10% means WESTS ARE THE LANDLORD AND EVERYONE ELSE IS ONLY A TENNANT.
MOST LANDLORDS WON'T TOLERATE TENNANTS THAT CAUSE TROUBLE SO THE TENNANT SOON FINDS THEMSELVES HOMELESS AND LIVING ON CHARITY.
BUT WAIT, THERES MORE, WESTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHARITABLE, SO THAT OPTION IS NO LONGER THERE AND THE TENNANT KNOWS THIS.
THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE NOW IS TO BECOME SQUATTERS.
BUT, TO BE A SUCCESSFUL SQUATTER WE HAVE TO STORM THE RAMPARTS AND BE PREPARED TO SPILL BLOOD TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CONTROL, AND THE UNFRIENDLY LANDLORD IS BANNISHED FOREVER.

If you're attempting to win over passionate WTs supporters, tone is very important. "Ungrateful rebels" are loyal WTs' supporters most of which would have next to no knowledge of Balmain or Wests. I am saddened it has come to this and while I support WTs, that does not include insulting Cochise and supporters. It will not lead to a positive outcome which is what we all want.

 

[tigereye]

BZN,

I understand you are frustrated, but you are on a tangent here. This has nothing to do with Balmain v Wests or squatters wanting to drive what the landlords do. The whole push is for competent governance of Wests Tigers.

I think you will find that most people couldn't give a rats if Balmain has a seat on the board or not, although it is a nice nod to our historic roots. It also wouldn't matter if Wests had 9 seats to Balmain's 1 to make the numbers work for the die hards IF the governance was fixed.

The issue is, and always has been, that the debenture holders, who make up less than 1% of the club's membership, have ALL of the decsion making power.

The new situation, with a few independenst a Balmain rep, and a majority of HBG appointees does not change the situation. It is still jobs for the anointed - who are not selected on skills or expereince - they are gifted their positions through a nepotistic governance arrangement.

IF members were given a vote and their elected members made appropriate decisions on their behalf then it would be fine. It isn't fine though, and the 15 years of below par performances attest to it. The evidence is irrefutable.

It was clearly demonstrated that the independent board makes much better business and footballing decsions because the individuals are appropriately qualified and, one would hope, making frank and fearless desisions for the betterment of the club.

The previous regime, and potentially the one that has just been put in place, will receive frank and fearless advice but, based on historc precedent, will choose to do what is best for the debenture holders - not the club.

Take off the Wests glasses, put on your Wests Tigers ones and look at the situation without prejudice and you will see the facts staring you in the face.

🏆. Spot on.