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.

 

[Big Red]

I did reply to this but one of the mods got their undies twisted as per usual and deleted it.
I find it funny how dismissive a person can be of another’s views when not knowing them. Why isn’t this my thing? I’ve run a successful business for many years. I continue to do so. You speak like you know me, however I wasn’t even really aware you existed on here as a regular poster until somewhere around the seasons end. I have no beef as I basically am unaware of you.

You stated improvements = success. To me improvement isn’t success unless it delivers tangible outcomes that can be measured against defined goals and we aren’t privy to that exact detail. From the outside looking in, there were some certain improvements financially. I disagree leadership was improved, in fact our leadership caused some of the drama amongst the group.
In 2025 the Tigers failed where it matters most - results and execution.
Poor on-field performance, ongoing instability off it, and fixes to problems that never should’ve existed don’t equal a successful season for mine., moreso a missed opportunity.
A “positive trajectory” is just permission to keep going — not a tick of achievement. It’s a good start and I don’t see why it can’t be extended and expanded upon this year.

Appreciate the response, I wasn’t trying to be dismissive. You posted something earlier along the lines that you think it’s a ridiculous thread and I genuinely thought you weren’t interested in discussing it.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about improvement being an indicator of success.

I agree that there were areas where we improved but likely underperformed against short term targets. However, it’s also likely that the improvements contributed to long term success through incremental gains.

This approach starts slow but compounds over time and results in steady and sustained growth rather than the boom and bust of fast rebuilds.

 

[gallagher]

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.

How does that work? You got to take back the independents but you can also have a majority on the board. Wouldn't they need to remove independents to have a majority?

 

[The Chad]

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

Again though- is that situation possible?

 

[The Chad]

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.

Strange negotiating tactic.

Yes- you are completely wrong. You must take back the independents.

However, you know what? Why don't you have control from now on instead?


With Jolls comment front & centre of mind- PVL could have negotiated with HBG to back down & take O'Farrell back. But maybe not with the big stick mentality most want to believe.

Like I've suggested before- I could believe a situation where HBG agreed to taking O'Farrell back due to other circumstances having played out.

This belief that PVL has HBG shaking in their boots does not play in line with giving them control of the Wests Tigers board.

Maybe I'm wrong. Don't know.