HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

[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.

 

[The Chad]

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

Yes.

But they DID say they would communicate more post the Feb board meeting. They gave a timeline.

 

[cochise]

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.

So in that situation, why would you sack the independent directors but leave the 2 HBG appointed directors who acted on your behalf incorrectly?

 

[cochise]

Yes.

But they DID say they would communicate more post the Feb board meeting. They gave a timeline.

So without any clarity can you blame fans for taking action?

 

[The Chad]

So in that situation, why would you sack the independent directors but leave the 2 HBG appointed directors who acted on your behalf incorrectly?

We don't know the final make-up of the board yet though. Why sack them? I don't want to speculate on wrong doing. But maybe HBG feel railroaded by decisions being pushed through?

Is that situation POSSIBLE?

 

[The Chad]

So without any clarity can you blame fans for taking action?

I think that, given that they have offered a timeline, and that nobody knows what the plan is- action could very well look like going off too early.

To point- in my opinion, the Tigers now have a superior person in the CEO role.

What is to say that the new Tigers board isn't better?

If it's not? Go to town.

 

[cochise]

We don't know the final make-up of the board yet though. Why sack them? I don't want to speculate on wrong doing. But maybe HBG feel railroaded by decisions being pushed through?

Is that situation POSSIBLE?

Then they needed better representatives, they left their representatives in place until one of them got themselves in further trouble.

 

[cochise]

I think that, given that they have offered a timeline, and that nobody knows what the plan is- action could very well look like going off too early.

To point- in my opinion, the Tigers now have a superior person in the CEO role.

What is to say that the new Tigers board isn't better?

If it's not? Go to town.

I disagree, I support Shaun in his role but I will take the guy with 30 years experience and a history of turning poor performing clubs around.

I think Shaun is our second best option though.

 

[area52]

Has the new WT Board been confirmed?

 

[Red88_Tiger]

It's interesting that BOF has chose to return. He must think that the situation can be workable.

Have you seen parliament question time. Probably gets exited with this sort of carryon

 

[mike]

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

PVL could be a master negotiator?

More than a master negotiator. The commission issues the NRL licence and own the Wests Tigers name. I am pretty sure HBG were told in no uncertain terms what would happen if they did not take the independent board members back. The only concession PVL made was that HBG could have the majority on the Wests Tigers board. Which IMO was an error.

 

[Jolls]

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.

Not really wanting to wade into the debate - but fact from BOF at the members meeting with the CEO - there is only one reason he is back at WT - PVL. He did not elaborate any further but you can deduce from this that it wasn't HBG that got BOF back on board - extrapolate that out as you see fit.

 

[Rock Hopper Steve]

Not really wanting to wade into the debate - but fact from BOF at the members meeting with the CEO - there is only one reason he is back at WT - PVL. He did not elaborate any further but you can deduce from this that it wasn't HBG that got BOF back on board - extrapolate that out as you see fit.

Good old fashion bat phone direct line straight to PVL.