HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

[mtd#2]

I’m sure organisations can bring in better quality members, however, HBG is limited to having a majority board of debenture holders, who have become debentures holders thru a closed shop selection process. Therefore I think you will find any new debenture holders will have an existing ‘alignment’ with HBG.

Thus limiting any possible improvement or direction moving forward.

I agree 100%.

 

[mike]

Sure. But with the right changes, some organisations can turn things around.

You can only go on history as history is a pretty good indicator of the future. For me history has shown that HBG cannot run a football club to success. They are great at running poker machine clubs, football clubs are entirely different.

 

[tig_prmz]

While I think that is correct at HBG level I don't think is has to be at WT level. They could choose to appoint a number of board members that are selected from within the HBG membership based on the skills that they hold. Of course they can do the exact opposite as well so only time will tell.

The end result is that we need a board that has the interests of Wests Tigers at its core. I personally don't care if they are HBG or independent - as long as they have the skills required and are looking after the best interests of WT as opposed to other factions.

We, the unwashed, don't know what we don't know. However, based on the statement by BOF we can assume that HBG have been given some clear direction from the NRL regarding actions they could take if HBG continues its malevonent behaviour.

I trust that this is enough for HBG to step back a little and focus on what's best for Wests Tigers as opposed to the wants of a few debenture holders.

I think the most important thing is that they need to have connections that are willing to invest $$$ in WT and happy to be repaid in exposure/ branding.

I honestly want to know how other NRL clubs function.

Do other club owners distribute some profits to the shareholders? If they don't, are shareholders allowed to borrow against the equity of a Club?

We need money and if no one can take any money out of WT, then why would anyone put money in?

The Board, the CEO, the owners etc.. they're not the issue. It's the structure.

Our main accomplishment in the last decade has been the CoE which was built through state funding.

I understand every NRL club relies on funding and many would go broke without it.

I don't know what the answer is obviously.

 

[supercoach]

If that is the case, why did they say Richo had their full support.

As I've said there is no light you can paint this in that makes the HBG in the right.

They messed this up big time and it just adds to a long list of mess ups.

They can continue to stuff up but like in the past they are answerable to nobody. They are like a secret society that are probably laughing at our posts

 

[gallagher]

Do they deserve it? The NRL owns the wests tigers brand and thats where the money is.. so maybe there should be NRL directors on the board instead?

Yes they do. You have the right to run something you own.

 

[supercoach]

You can only go on history as history is a pretty good indicator of the future. For me history has shown that HBG cannot run a football club to success. They are great at running poker machine clubs, football clubs are entirely different.

They only have success with the above because the are geographically located in an area of Sydney where a large portion of the population loves the one armed bandits and are willing to throw lots of money at them.

 

[mike]

They only have success with the above because the are geographically located in an area of Sydney where a large portion of the population loves the one armed bandits and are willing to throw lots of money at them.

Yeah, you don’t need much business acumen to run a poker machine club.

 

[TheEnz]

I think the most important thing is that they need to have connections that are willing to invest $$$ in WT and happy to be repaid in exposure/ branding.

I honestly want to know how other NRL clubs function.

Do other club owners distribute some profits to the shareholders? If they don't, are shareholders allowed to borrow against the equity of a Club?

We need money and if no one can take any money out of WT, then why would anyone put money in?

The Board, the CEO, the owners etc.. they're not the issue. It's the structure.

Our main accomplishment in the last decade has been the CoE which was built through state funding.

I understand every NRL club relies on funding and many would go broke without it.

I don't know what the answer is obviously.

Ownership Model	Description	Examples
Member-Owned	Members elect boards; community-driven governance	Traditional Sydney clubs
Privately Owned	Owned by individuals/corporations	Storm, Warriors, Titans
Publicly Listed	Shares traded on stock exchange	Brisbane Broncos
Leagues Club-Owned (NFP)	Owned by not‑for‑profit leagues clubs	Sharks, Cowboys, Eels
Hybrid Ownership	Mix of private and member/leagues club ownership	Rabbitohs, Dragons
Government/ARLC Ownership	Rare special-purpose ownership	PNG Chiefs

1. Member-Owned Clubs
These clubs are owned collectively by their financial members, who typically have voting rights and influence over governance.

Members elect boards and help guide club direction.
This model reflects the historical roots of rugby league as a community-based sport.

Source: Member-owned clubs are described as a primary NRL ownership model.

2. Privately Owned Clubs
Clubs are owned by individuals, corporations, or investment groups. These owners provide capital, strategic direction, and governance.
Examples include:

Melbourne Storm – owned by private investors.
New Zealand Warriors – owned by Autex Industries.



3. Publicly Listed Clubs
A rare model in Australian sport. Shares in the club are traded on the stock market, allowing public investment.
Example:

Brisbane Broncos, the only NRL club listed on the ASX.



4. Leagues Club-Owned (Not-for-Profit Ownership)
Many traditional NRL clubs are owned by large registered Leagues Clubs—hospitality/gaming venues that reinvest profits into sports operations.
Characteristics:

Clubs operate on a not‑for‑profit basis.
Revenue comes from gaming, hospitality, and membership rather than private equity.

Examples:

Cronulla‑Sutherland Sharks
North Queensland Cowboys
Parramatta Eels



5. Hybrid Ownership Models
A mix of private ownership and member/club ownership.
Examples include:

South Sydney Rabbitohs → 75% privately owned (Crowe/Packer/M Cannon‑Brookes group), 25% member-owned.
St George Illawarra Dragons → 50% WIN Corporation, 50% St George Leagues Club.


6. Government or Commission-Linked Ownership (Rare)
Some expansion clubs or special cases may involve ownership stakes by governing bodies.
Example:

Papua New Guinea Chiefs – jointly owned by the ARLC and Australian Government.

 

[Telltails]

Yes they do. You have the right to run something you own.

My understanding is that none of the individuals that make the decisions own anything Gal.
They are not private investors - they are the beneficiaries of the debenture system that gives them power and appears to be factional not merit based - given the bloodshed in recent times.

 

[TheEnz]

In most cases other than a not for profit ownership, yes in theory they could draw a profit and pay it out, however I expect the NRL funding can only be spent on specific things and not taken out as profit. In relation to the HBG ownership, i believe their charter includes a dividend paid to debenture holders....its likely pretty insignificant and a percent of their investment so purely a symbolic payment and the rest is either paid as a salary to board members (again probably not a significant amount) maybe $10k - 30K at most. The rest would need to be re-invested in the club thru NRL, Junior comps, community activities, renovations, new asset purchases etc...

 

[Jolls]

Ownership Model	Description	Examples
Member-Owned	Members elect boards; community-driven governance	Traditional Sydney clubs
Privately Owned	Owned by individuals/corporations	Storm, Warriors, Titans
Publicly Listed	Shares traded on stock exchange	Brisbane Broncos
Leagues Club-Owned (NFP)	Owned by not‑for‑profit leagues clubs	Sharks, Cowboys, Eels
Hybrid Ownership	Mix of private and member/leagues club ownership	Rabbitohs, Dragons
Government/ARLC Ownership	Rare special-purpose ownership	PNG Chiefs

1. Member-Owned Clubs
These clubs are owned collectively by their financial members, who typically have voting rights and influence over governance.

Members elect boards and help guide club direction.
This model reflects the historical roots of rugby league as a community-based sport.

Source: Member-owned clubs are described as a primary NRL ownership model.

2. Privately Owned Clubs
Clubs are owned by individuals, corporations, or investment groups. These owners provide capital, strategic direction, and governance.
Examples include:

Melbourne Storm – owned by private investors.
New Zealand Warriors – owned by Autex Industries.



3. Publicly Listed Clubs
A rare model in Australian sport. Shares in the club are traded on the stock market, allowing public investment.
Example:

Brisbane Broncos, the only NRL club listed on the ASX.

Source: The Broncos are noted as the only publicly listed NRL club. [australiau...rapped.com]

4. Leagues Club-Owned (Not-for-Profit Ownership)
Many traditional NRL clubs are owned by large registered Leagues Clubs—hospitality/gaming venues that reinvest profits into sports operations.
Characteristics:

Clubs operate on a not‑for‑profit basis.
Revenue comes from gaming, hospitality, and membership rather than private equity.

Examples:

Cronulla‑Sutherland Sharks
North Queensland Cowboys
Parramatta Eels



5. Hybrid Ownership Models
A mix of private ownership and member/club ownership.
Examples include:

South Sydney Rabbitohs → 75% privately owned (Crowe/Packer/M Cannon‑Brookes group), 25% member-owned.
St George Illawarra Dragons → 50% WIN Corporation, 50% St George Leagues Club.

Source: Hybrid ownership models are documented in NRL club structures. [grokipedia.com]

6. Government or Commission-Linked Ownership (Rare)
Some expansion clubs or special cases may involve ownership stakes by governing bodies.
Example:

Papua New Guinea Chiefs – jointly owned by the ARLC and Australian Government.

To take this one step further - we are governed by the club'c constitution which in short says - give back to the community and promote Rugby League in the region. We aren't a not for profit but HBG give more back to members than it does to Wests Tigers.

Shaun Meilekamp hit the nail on the head when he discussed this issue at the members forum. The board needs to change the thinking of HBG. They have to go from giving the minimal they can to keep the club running to being happy kicking in $10M and asking how they can do more.

This is about changing attitudes from us and them to we! Win that battle and the rest falls into place. The problem, as I see it, is that over the years some members of the boards have been all about me.

 

[mtd#2]

Yes they do. You have the right to run something you own.

Using the same logic, if the nrl see someone ruining the brand that they own, they can also do as they please.. thats our saving grace

 

[mtd#2]

My understanding is that none of the individuals that make the decisions own anything Gal.
They are not private investors - they are the beneficiaries of the debenture system that gives them power and appears to be factional not merit based - given the bloodshed in recent times.

I think he is referring to the HBG organisation, not individual

 

[hank37w]

So which stadiums would you have not signed on with? Leichardt? Campbelltown? Commbank?

To my way of thinking we got shafted when they ditched the plans to turn Olympic Park/Accor into a rectangular ground with the curtaining to reduce it to around a 30k capacity or so when required for club games.

That could have been a good home ground fairly central for everyone with a couple of games a year at Leichhardt and Cambo.

Would have been perfect with it's location pretty much in the centre of Sydney with good transport links, close to Concord and all the Wests clubs, and not really associated with any one club as being their sole home ground like Parramatta and Alliance are.

Instead they built the Roorters an extremely expensive home ground that has major drainage issues and that the Roorters scum are reluctant to share with anyone else, and in the meantime Olympic Park remains a cavern that is suited to a couple of major events a year plus a couple of games that the Dogs manage to pack out by offering $10 tickets to their filthy rabble and still manage to make money on the day.

 

[gallagher]

My understanding is that none of the individuals that make the decisions own anything Gal.
They are not private investors - they are the beneficiaries of the debenture system that gives them power and appears to be factional not merit based - given the bloodshed in recent times.

That's true, I was referring to HBG owning the club and wanting to run it.

 

[Telltails]

I think he is referring to the HBG organisation, not individual

Which makes the individuals expendable if they consistently fail.
Not the case for private ownership

 

[gallagher]

Using the same logic, if the nrl see someone ruining the brand that they own, they can also do as they please.. thats our saving grace

In extreme circumstances they could. I think they appointed board members at Parra when they were cheating the cap. They didn't take the license back though.
I don't think we are any where near the stage where the NRL want to step in

 

[mtd#2]

In extreme circumstances they could. I think they appointed board members at Parra when they were cheating the cap. They didn't take the license back though.
I don't think we are any where near the stage where the NRL want to step in

Idk. Its been dogs breakfast for a while now.

Im curious about your comments re 3 stadiums in Sydney

What would you have kept/left out?

 

[gallagher]

Idk. Its been dogs breakfast for a while now.

Im curious about your comments re 3 stadiums in Sydney

What would you have kept/left out?

I would have been at Homebush fulltime 20 years ago, then CommBank. Campbo and LO councils to improve their stadiums before we go back.
You'd cop flack for a year or so then everyone would have just moved on like dogs and souffs fans.
We'd be a better funded club and a more united fan base IMO.

 

[weststigers]

Yes, there is at least one other returning.

That still would not make it a 4 from 7 independent board. Have they not increased board members to 9?

All this is to my point.

Even if they all came back, we will have 5 non-independent against 4.

That is not "true to the review"