HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

[cochise]

Again though- is that situation possible?

Even if that is the scenario, it doesn't justify there processes of damaging the reputation of board members.

This is also one incidence of the HBG dismissing board members in the last 18 months across their group.

A well functioning organisation doesn't dismiss 8 board members in 18 months.

 

[gallagher]

Even if that is the scenario, it doesn't justify there processes of damaging the reputation of board members.

This is also one incidence of the HBG dismissing board members in the last 18 months across their group.

A well functioning organisation doesn't dismiss 8 board members in 18 months.

No one was complaining last time around though. Dismissing the board that included Hagi and also Pascoe was roundly applauded.
So the action seems acceptable.....if you agree with who got punted.

 

[weststigers]

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 biggest question that is never answered in all your word salad is this:

Let's concede for a moment that HBG had a point and were totally correct that there was a lack of communication on major financial matters.

Barry was the Chair of WT. It is the chairman's responsibility to report back to the HBG board.

Why were the other 3 board members sacked?

Are they suggesting that 3 board members were very communicative with HBG, but the 4 independent board members weren't?

The story doesn't match reality. The actions don't match the story.

 

[The Chad]

Even if that is the scenario, it doesn't justify there processes of damaging the reputation of board members.

This is also one incidence of the HBG dismissing board members in the last 18 months across their group.

A well functioning organisation doesn't dismiss 8 board members in 18 months.

With that in mind- how are the HBG run organisations going?

I'm not talking about results on the field- that is for Wests Tigers to organise.

But specifically, HBG run operations. How are they operating? I assume with all the board room moves, they must be in trouble?

 

[mike]

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

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.

PVL has all the cards. There was no other option for HBG.

 

[mike]

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?

No. They increase the size of the board so HBG have a majority on the board.

 

[Lestronge]

No one was complaining last time around though. Dismissing the board that included Hagi and also Pascoe was roundly applauded.
So the action seems acceptable.....if you agree with who got punted.

Come on bro …. That’s just picking and choosing to try and win an argument . To imply that the dismissal of both boards are in any way similar is yuck. Lee and Pascoe were given multiple avenues and pathways for failure and ultimately it lead to poor choice after poor choice , knee jerk reactions , signings played out in the media , where we actually lost. A lot of them because it was … it was a shit show .
The worst thing the new board did was try to put governance processes in place that ultimately distanced itself from its owners .
This is why they were sacked. Rather than read the room , and understand why a subsidiary board would want to distance itself from HBG , they assumed the worst and a hostile takeover , and paranoia took over . Rather than IMO , the truth … to try and mitigate people who failed at music 40 years ago , and dodgy real estate agents from making knee jerk decisions about a multi million dollar football club .

 

[cochise]

No one was complaining last time around though. Dismissing the board that included Hagi and also Pascoe was roundly applauded.
So the action seems acceptable.....if you agree with who got punted.

There was a process at that time.that included a thorough external review.

That wasn't last time either, HBG dismissed a total of 8 directors since that time in 3 different occasions across 2 boards.

 

[Hbom]

Chad's turn this week.

 

[area52]

Come on bro …. That’s just picking and choosing to try and win an argument . To imply that the dismissal of both boards are in any way similar is yuck. Lee and Pascoe were given multiple avenues and pathways for failure and ultimately it lead to poor choice after poor choice , knee jerk reactions , signings played out in the media , where we actually lost. A lot of them because it was … it was a shit show .
The worst thing the new board did was try to put governance processes in place that ultimately distanced itself from its owners .
This is why they were sacked. Rather than read the room , and understand why a subsidiary board would want to distance itself from HBG , they assumed the worst and a hostile takeover , and paranoia took over . Rather than IMO , the truth … to try and mitigate people who failed at music 40 years ago , and dodgy real estate agents from making knee jerk decisions about a multi million dollar football club .

Newcastle jets are on top of the competition in Aleague.

 

[area52]

PVL has all the cards. There was no other option for HBG.

PVL doesnt give a shit

 

[gallagher]

Chad's turn this week.

One of the few that's looking at it without bias.

 

[Telltails]

One of the few that's looking at it without bias.

Geez Gall we are all bias to a degree but HBG have given us plenty of reasons to blow up given the reason for the frustration was at their own hand.
One minute we are celebrating the appointment of one of the best CEOs in the game and next minute one year into his deal at WTs he leaves with mud being thrown at him by an organization known for it's for incompetence.

You and Chad can given them the benefit of the doubt but for the life of me can't see what you are basing it on.

 

[TIGERS]

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.

Great post.

 

[TIGERS]

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.

Make that two beers if we ever meet.

 

[gallagher]

Geez Gall we are all bias to a degree but HBG have given us plenty of reasons to blow up given the reason for the frustration was at their own hand.
One minute we are celebrating the appointment of one of the best CEOs in the game and next minute one year into his deal at WTs he leaves with mud being thrown at him by an organization known for it's for incompetence.

You and Chad can given them the benefit of the doubt but for the life of me can't see what you are basing it on.

No, I'm happy for them not to be the owners. And I'm filthy that Richardson is gone.
I'm just looking for reasonable discussion and must people in this thread are either far left or far right. Chad can see both sides IMO.
I don't know if the board deserved to be dumped or not. I'm not gonna assume that they did or didn't.
I know they signed off on a 3 ground stadium contract in the one city so straight away I'm not impressed with them.

What have the board done this year that has you feeling we're on the right path?

 

[Telltails]

No, I'm happy for them not to be the owners. And I'm filthy that Richardson is gone.
I'm just looking for reasonable discussion and must people in this thread are either far left or far right. Chad can see both sides IMO.
I don't know if the board deserved to be dumped or not. I'm not gonna assume that they did or didn't.
I know they signed off on a 3 ground stadium contract in the one city so straight away I'm not impressed with them.

What have the board done this year that has you feeling we're on the right path?

At this point I dont know who is on the board - just like the begining of last season when we were still waiting for the independent directors to be appointed after what took an age.
I'd be quite happy for them to be working together as a unit for the WTs not the Magpies or Balmain and never hear about any of them again until we can share in some level of success.
But no all we get is a power struggle at board level that creates division and damages the brand - that is not effective leadership in any organization.