HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

[The Chad]

Thank you

No need- apologies if it offended.

 

[king_sirro]

I don't know. Honestly- I've said this quite a lot- I don't know why they have done some of the things they have.

Tucker might have the right of it- more a PR exercise as they were getting roundly berated at the time.

Maybe they felt responsible to explain to fans why they were changing it BECAUSE they were looking to change something largely driven by fan requests?

What I will say is, despite taking O'Farrell back, at no point have HBG changed that statement/given a new one. So, on face value of it, they felt, as a group, that they were left out of significant financial decisions at a board level.

How that came about is open to speculation.

What I believe/suspect is- with the way HBG shifted gears on the board members post the Richardson resignation- having Richardson out of the club eased the situation.

Read into that what you like, but the two things together, combined with O'Farrell & Richardson signing off on the ground allocations.. I imagine this is the focal point.

If I was a betting man, my guess would be that HBG felt Richardson (and to a lesser degree O'Farrell/independent board members) was making decisions that HBG felt should have been run past them as the main financial partner of the Wests Tigers (not including grants etc).

So are you saying Richardson and O'Farrell were signing off on major things without board approval therefore breaking the law?

 

[The Chad]

So are you saying Richardson and O'Farrell were signing off on major things without board approval therefore breaking the law?

I'm saying HBG felt they were not being consulted on things in the way they felt they should have been.

Again, I don't KNOW anything. People want to run with speculation- that's my version of speculation.

 

[king_sirro]

I'm saying HBG felt they were not being consulted on things in the way they felt they should have been.

Again, I don't KNOW anything. People want to run with speculation- that's my version of speculation.

But Legally the board has to sign off on things so how didnt they know things?

 

[The Chad]

But Legally the board has to sign off on things so how didnt they know things?

No idea.

What's the timeline between the Wests Tigers board putting forward a motion & signing off, to the 2 HBG members sitting in front of HBG & getting the HBG board to agree with it?

Could a few decisions have been pushed through, signed off by the Wests Tigers board, but the HBG board members NOT sitting on the Wests Tigers board didn't agree? But before their concerns were heard, the motion is passed & actioned?

Don't know.

 

[Telltails]

So are you saying Richardson and O'Farrell were signing off on major things without board approval therefore breaking the law?

Good old Chad doesnt know anything when defending HBG's actions but defends them consistently as the aggressors, but when it comes to Richardson and OFarrelll still doesn't know anything but comes up with a theory to discredit them.

 

[king_sirro]

I'm saying HBG felt they were not being consulted on things in the way they felt they should have been.

Again, I don't KNOW anything. People want to run with speculation- that's my version of speculation.

Chad i admire your calmness in discussing things and your obviously more eloquent than they likes of me, however I sort of feel like your calling people out for speculating, but in a way your doing the same speculation, just throwing in the odd "no one knows" line to deflect away your point of view and opinion that you are pushing.

 

[king_sirro]

Good old Chad doesnt know anything when defending HBG's actions but defends them consistently as the aggressors, but when it comes to Richardson and OFarrelll still doesn't know anything but comes up with a theory to discredit them.

I didn't see this before I wrote my last post, basically what I said, glad your picking up on that as well

 

[The Chad]

Chad i admire your calmness in discussing things and your obviously more eloquent than they likes of me, however I sort of feel like your calling people out for speculating, but in a way your doing the same speculation, just throwing in the odd "no one knows" line to deflect away your point of view and opinion that you are pushing.

Haha- thank you.

I speculate ONCE & I'm tarred with being an avid speculator.. Haha.

Honestly- what I'm suggesting is- if we want to run with speculation AGAINST HBG, you can just as easily run with speculation FOR HBG if you try to.

 

[king_sirro]

No idea.

What's the timeline between the Wests Tigers board putting forward a motion & signing off, to the 2 HBG members sitting in front of HBG & getting the HBG board to agree with it?

Could a few decisions have been pushed through, signed off by the Wests Tigers board, but the HBG board members NOT sitting on the Wests Tigers board didn't agree? But before their concerns were heard, the motion is passed & actioned?

Don't know.

So by that theory the HBG wanted a board that just did what they said

 

[Telltails]

I didn't see this before I wrote my last post, basically what I said, glad your picking up on that as well

My theory is Chads on HBGs PR team

 

[The Chad]

Good old Chad doesnt know anything when defending HBG's actions but defends them consistently as the aggressors, but when it comes to Richardson and OFarrelll still doesn't know anything but comes up with a theory to discredit them.

Just giving an alternative option.

The 'theory' doesn't necessarily discredit anyone. Like I said, HBG FELT they were not consulted adequately. The Wests Tigers board might think differently.

People seem to want to overlook what HBG said when they made their decision.

 

[king_sirro]

Haha- thank you.

I speculate ONCE & I'm tarred with being an avid speculator.. Haha.

Honestly- what I'm suggesting is- if we want to run with speculation AGAINST HBG, you can just as easily run with speculation FOR HBG if you try to.

After so many years of HBG failing at running this club, how can you seriously say its just as easy to defend them than criticise them? To take that stance is to excuse years of failure by them

 

[The Chad]

So bad that theory the HBG wanted a board that just did what they said

That isn't what I said though.

Just that they didn't feel like they had been consulted.

 

[The Chad]

My theory is Chads on HBGs PR team

I probably should be by now, by default.

 

[king_sirro]

That isn't what I said though.

Just that they didn't feel like they had been consulted.

Its exactly what it is mate. So your suggestion is its possible this wouldn't have happened if they were consulted more? My suggestion to that is, they would have tried to run the club from outside the boardroom and pressure to over rule decisions by the board. I mean, isnt the proof in the pudding by what they have done?

 

[The Chad]

After so many years of HBG failing at running this club, how can you seriously say its just as easy to defend them than criticise them? To take that stance is to excuse years of failure by them

4 years ago it was Pascoe & Hagipentalis that were to blame.

Then it was Sheens.

Now it's HBG.

People like Shane Richardson. So it's definitely not him.

Opinion on where blame should be directed isn't consistent.

 

[king_sirro]

4 years ago it was Pascoe & Hagipentalis that were to blame.

Then it was Sheens.

Now it's HBG.

People like Shane Richardson. So it's definitely not him.

Opinion on where blame should be directed isn't consistent.

Who oversaw all those people and appointments?

 

[mtd#2]

Tucker might have the right of it- more a PR exercise as they were getting roundly berated at the time.

Ink posted above that the media leak and video ammouncement were on the same day, so it rules this theory out.

 

[The Chad]

Its exactly what it is mate. So your suggestion is its possible this wouldn't have happened if they were consulted more? My suggestion to that is, they would have tried to run the club from outside the boardroom and pressure to over rule decisions by the board. I mean, isnt the proof in the pudding by what they have done?

Maybe.

But your speculation & mine are neither more right or wrong.

This is why I keep saying- don't know.

What nobody (bar the Pro Magpies shills or whatever we are calling them today) wants to acknowledge is that HBG may have had a point. The fans are convinced that HBG is Emperor Palpatine & his cronies at work.

And that is fine. But it doesn't make it true.