HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

[The Chad]

What point shows them in a positive light though?

Big enough to take Barry back? Big enough to take on & implement the independent board idea in the first place?

I doubt HBG thought they were going to look like the good guys when they pulled the trigger.

But looking like the good guys or not doesn't make their point less valid.

 

[The Chad]

That's why an external review was important. Let professional establish what was wrong inside the club.

Question- do we KNOW that the new Wests Tigers board will not have an independent majority yet?

 

[The Chad]

I would hope they knew, not felt before they dismissed 4 board members for lack of communication.

Probably damaged the professional reputation of a couple of them. Im surprised that some of them are returning.

We discussed this about 231 pages ago I think... they may have acted impulsively. Or they may have thought they need to disband the board immediately & then rebuild it before more things were 'out of hand' perhaps?

 

[king_sirro]

We discussed this about 231 pages ago I think... they may have acted impulsively. Or they may have thought they need to disband the board immediately & then rebuild it before more things were 'out of hand' perhaps?

Come on Chad, even you dont believe your own twist on reality

 

[mike]

At the risk of repeating myself & the likes of yourself rolling your eyes...

Maybe.

But we don't know why they were reappointed. What was discussed between PVL, HBG & O'Farrell COULD be that HBG were told they must take Barry back like naughty little boys.

Or.

PVL & O'Farrell discussed the situation with HBG, and HBG felt that with other staff members moving on, there was a path forward with Barry as chair.

I don’t know the exact words that were used, but I do definitely know that without PVLs intervention the independent board members would not be back. How do I know? Because O’Farrell said so.

 

[The Chad]

Please be specific, what part of my post was speculation?

- No one was talking about HBG until their CEO posted a video to announce the sacking of the independent directors and new vision for the club.

-Richo resigned.

-HBG met with PVL

- HBG reinstated the directors.

So now HBG look completely incompetent.

If they want to clear the air, then they should come out with a statement and explain what happened.

Until then, they will continue to look incompetent to the majority of NRL fans.

The rest is speculation.


Sorry mate- you're right. Not too much speculation there. I'm trying to get through about 276 messages & may have combined a few. 😀

Highlighted what I would consider speculation.

What I will say is the facts pointed out only factually show an event. Or a result. But not what brought it about.

 

[The Chad]

Come on Chad, even you dont believe your own twist on reality

I think there was something more to it, sure. But the one time I speculated I got bombared. Lol.

 

[The Chad]

I don’t know the exact words that were used, but I do definitely know that without PVLs intervention the independent board members would not be back. How do I know? Because O’Farrell said so.

That is quite possible. I think I remember that too.

PVL could be a master negotiator?

 

[cochise]

At the risk of repeating myself & the likes of yourself rolling your eyes...

Maybe.

But we don't know why they were reappointed. What was discussed between PVL, HBG & O'Farrell COULD be that HBG were told they must take Barry back like naughty little boys.

Or.

PVL & O'Farrell discussed the situation with HBG, and HBG felt that with other staff members moving on, there was a path forward with Barry as chair.

So which of those 2 options show HBG acting in a manner that is a positive for the Wests Tigers?

They have messed up in either of those scenarios, that is my point.

 

[cochise]

Big enough to take Barry back? Big enough to take on & implement the independent board idea in the first place?

I doubt HBG thought they were going to look like the good guys when they pulled the trigger.

But looking like the good guys or not doesn't make their point less valid.

If they were big enough to take him back, then they shouldn't have dismissed the independent in the first place.

They should have sorted this before it got to that point.

 

[The Chad]

So wouldn't the blame for that fall to the directors they appointed.

You might be able to answer this one-

What is the timeline between the Wests Tigers board reading a motion & passing it?

Does it happen in the same meeting?

I asked a question earlier- if HBG thought they were not consulted on....'something'...and it was an item motioned & passed in the same meeting, prior to the HBG appointed Wests Tigers board members then sitting in front of the HBG board to report/run the topic by them to digest- is there a world these items COULD be passed PRIOR to the HBG board actually being informed by the sitting Wests Tigers board members?

If so- is it possible something like THAT is what they are concerned about?

 

[The Chad]

So which of those 2 options show HBG acting in a manner that is a positive for the Wests Tigers?

They have messed up in either of those scenarios, that is my point.

Well, the path that could be in Wests Tigers favour would be if the complaint about not being properly informed is, indeed, correct.

 

[cochise]

Question- do we KNOW that the new Wests Tigers board will not have an independent majority yet?

You are correct, we don't know but the statement you keep talking about stated that HBG needed to take back control of the club.

If the board is going to be a majority independent board then HBG could have put this to bed months ago by stating that.

For the sake of clarity, more than just Barry are returning.

 

[The Chad]

If they were big enough to take him back, then they shouldn't have dismissed the independent in the first place.

They should have sorted this before it got to that point.

Probably, yeah.

Whatever their reason was- it wasn't enough to stop Barry O'Farrell from fighting to get back on the board & then accepting the role when offered.

Is there a world that exists that suggests that after PVL, O'Farrell & HBG met, that all sides agreed that mistakes were made & there was a path forward? In that SAME world, could O'Farrell have understood the HBG position? Maybe even understood his role in it?

 

[hammertime]

I think the organisation was actually moving too fast for HBG - say what you like about richo, but hes a do'er.

Weve moved at a much slower pace in the past. Lee is quoted as such - like spending entire board meetings on the size of the magpie.

It probably felt out of control for HBG. You dont need to move quickly in pokie land.

 

[The Chad]

You are correct, we don't know but the statement you keep talking about stated that HBG needed to take back control of the club.

If the board is going to be a majority independent board then HBG could have put this to bed months ago by stating that.

For the sake of clarity, more than just Barry are returning.

Just highlighting that.

2 ways to read it.

Take back control on a permanent basis.

Or

Stop what they considered an immediate rot, take control of the board & then set it up without whatever the issue had been? That doesn't necessarily suggest KEEPING control.

It wouldn't be the first time a majority owner moved on other board members due to what they consider poor governance or whatever.

 

[cochise]

You might be able to answer this one-

What is the timeline between the Wests Tigers board reading a motion & passing it?

Does it happen in the same meeting?

I asked a question earlier- if HBG thought they were not consulted on....'something'...and it was an item motioned & passed in the same meeting, prior to the HBG appointed Wests Tigers board members then sitting in front of the HBG board to report/run the topic by them to digest- is there a world these items COULD be passed PRIOR to the HBG board actually being informed by the sitting Wests Tigers board members?

If so- is it possible something like THAT is what they are concerned about?

Again it would be the responsibility of the HBG appointed directors to state they need further time to discuss with their board before passing a motion. They are there solely as the representatives of the HBG. If they vote or allow a motion to pass they are acting on behalf of the HBG.

 

[The Chad]

I think the organisation was actually moving too fast for HBG - say what you like about richo, but hes a do'er.

Weve moved at a much slower pace in the past. Lee is quoted as such - like spending entire board meetings on the size of the magpie.

It probably felt out of control for HBG. You dont need to move quickly in pokie land.

Actually that is a very good theory.

 

[cochise]

Just highlighting that.

2 ways to read it.

Take back control on a permanent basis.

Or

Stop what they considered an immediate rot, take control of the board & then set it up without whatever the issue had been? That doesn't necessarily suggest KEEPING control.

It wouldn't be the first time a majority owner moved on other board members due to what they consider poor governance or whatever.

Again if you don't communicate with your stakeholders then you leave yourself open to that.

 

[The Chad]

Again it would be the responsibility of the HBG directors to state they need further time to discuss with their board before passing a motion. They are there solely as the representatives of the HBG. If they vote or allow a motion to pass they are acting on behalf of the HBG.

Understand that. But is that scenario POSSIBLE?

Could be that the 2 appointed HBG reps thought "yep, good idea" took it back to HBG & their majority was "nope, bad idea" but the motion was passed.

Remembering that part of the structure was HBG were to be consulted on financial matters.

That would make the 2 HBG board members look like they messed up.

But it could ALSO explain the HBG stance.