HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

As an idea..

The majority vote on here is to remove HBG.

Let's, for arguments sake, say that HBG are guilty of poor management.

That said, they can be commended for their continued investment in not ONLY Wests Tigers, but Wests Ashfield & BJRLC as well. They don't NEED to invest into Balmain- they chose to, for whatever reason you want to believe.

I made a vague point eons ago & was quickly accused of blaming Balmain...but I'll bring up a point/suggestion again.

The REAL problem at Wests Tigers, as I see it, isn't HBG. It's that HBG (or anyone else- it could have been the other way around) has 90% majority ownership. This is a joint venture with only one side of the venture contributing.

In any business, the bigger contributor will expect bigger say.

There's been a few on here suggest we would be better off bought out by someone new- Laundy was suggested a few times.

That all leads to removing HBG. Some fans want HBG out regardless of new owners or not- funding takes care of itself apparently.

Why has NOBODY suggested that Balmain requires someone to buy it out, and then contribute equal parts to what Wests/HBG contribute to Wests Tigers?

If both JV clubs were to contribute the same amount (or even similar), you could have equal representation from BOTH clubs on the Wests Tigers board. You then get independents to be the difference in voting- could be 1, 3, 5...however many you want to add.


The idea that "HBG out" solves everything assumes that whoever takes over isn't going to have exactly the same 'me first' agenda you accuse HBG of having.

I don't want HBG out. I think they should be encouraged to do more. I also think they shouldn't be in a position to carry the can for Wests Tigers. Any individual (or group) that owns a majority of any board is in a position to manipulate the state of play in their favour.

Fans want HBG out.

I want Balmain in.

PVL, Darcy Do-Little, the CEO, the fans...instead of throwing out what we have, instead focus on getting someone else to buy in. Balmain is ripe for taking over, investing in the juniors, the leagues club- according to a few, running a pokies club is simple, right?

That way, Wests Tigers can have a fair, even board made up of two clubs sharing responsibilities & costs & funding etc.
 
The Chad said:
As an idea..

The majority vote on here is to remove HBG.

Let's, for arguments sake, say that HBG are guilty of poor management.

That said, they can be commended for their continued investment in not ONLY Wests Tigers, but Wests Ashfield & BJRLC as well. They don't NEED to invest into Balmain- they chose to, for whatever reason you want to believe.

I made a vague point eons ago & was quickly accused of blaming Balmain...but I'll bring up a point/suggestion again.

The REAL problem at Wests Tigers, as I see it, isn't HBG. It's that HBG (or anyone else- it could have been the other way around) has 90% majority ownership. This is a joint venture with only one side of the venture contributing.

In any business, the bigger contributor will expect bigger say.

There's been a few on here suggest we would be better off bought out by someone new- Laundy was suggested a few times.

That all leads to removing HBG. Some fans want HBG out regardless of new owners or not- funding takes care of itself apparently.

Why has NOBODY suggested that Balmain requires someone to buy it out, and then contribute equal parts to what Wests/HBG contribute to Wests Tigers?

If both JV clubs were to contribute the same amount (or even similar), you could have equal representation from BOTH clubs on the Wests Tigers board. You then get independents to be the difference in voting- could be 1, 3, 5...however many you want to add.


The idea that "HBG out" solves everything assumes that whoever takes over isn't going to have exactly the same 'me first' agenda you accuse HBG of having.

I don't want HBG out. I think they should be encouraged to do more. I also think they shouldn't be in a position to carry the can for Wests Tigers. Any individual (or group) that owns a majority of any board is in a position to manipulate the state of play in their favour.

Fans want HBG out.

I want Balmain in.

PVL, Darcy Do-Little, the CEO, the fans...instead of throwing out what we have, instead focus on getting someone else to buy in. Balmain is ripe for taking over, investing in the juniors, the leagues club- according to a few, running a pokies club is simple, right?

That way, Wests Tigers can have a fair, even board made up of two clubs sharing responsibilities & costs & funding etc.
Click to expand...
Balmain are irrelevant to the discussion, they ran their club into the ground so I don't want them anywhere near the Wests Tigers.
 
gallagher said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair enough..
Id personally hate that. I couldnt get behind any strategy that includes homebush, its a graveyard. Atleast commbank has character.
I also look forward to Leichardt games far too much.
 
The Chad said:
As an idea..

The majority vote on here is to remove HBG.

Let's, for arguments sake, say that HBG are guilty of poor management.

That said, they can be commended for their continued investment in not ONLY Wests Tigers, but Wests Ashfield & BJRLC as well. They don't NEED to invest into Balmain- they chose to, for whatever reason you want to believe.

I made a vague point eons ago & was quickly accused of blaming Balmain...but I'll bring up a point/suggestion again.

The REAL problem at Wests Tigers, as I see it, isn't HBG. It's that HBG (or anyone else- it could have been the other way around) has 90% majority ownership. This is a joint venture with only one side of the venture contributing.

In any business, the bigger contributor will expect bigger say.

There's been a few on here suggest we would be better off bought out by someone new- Laundy was suggested a few times.

That all leads to removing HBG. Some fans want HBG out regardless of new owners or not- funding takes care of itself apparently.

Why has NOBODY suggested that Balmain requires someone to buy it out, and then contribute equal parts to what Wests/HBG contribute to Wests Tigers?

If both JV clubs were to contribute the same amount (or even similar), you could have equal representation from BOTH clubs on the Wests Tigers board. You then get independents to be the difference in voting- could be 1, 3, 5...however many you want to add.


The idea that "HBG out" solves everything assumes that whoever takes over isn't going to have exactly the same 'me first' agenda you accuse HBG of having.

I don't want HBG out. I think they should be encouraged to do more. I also think they shouldn't be in a position to carry the can for Wests Tigers. Any individual (or group) that owns a majority of any board is in a position to manipulate the state of play in their favour.

Fans want HBG out.

I want Balmain in.

PVL, Darcy Do-Little, the CEO, the fans...instead of throwing out what we have, instead focus on getting someone else to buy in. Balmain is ripe for taking over, investing in the juniors, the leagues club- according to a few, running a pokies club is simple, right?

That way, Wests Tigers can have a fair, even board made up of two clubs sharing responsibilities & costs & funding etc.
Click to expand...
Having two voices would take us backwards! Its not the solution.

No one has a problem with HBG ownership per se, they have problems that the custodian directors are seemingly not acting in members or community interests and there is no mechanism to drive accountability of a members club.

The funding is almost negligible these days and WT sponsors/members and the NRL put more into the club than HBG.

We need better people running the club, not more of the same!

No to balmain please.
 
The Chad said:
Pretty much the WHOLE argument has been based on assumptions.

Beyond the fact that board members were removed- pretty much every statement since has been based around an assumption- not evidence.
Click to expand...
No, the whole argument is based on the fact that Tigers have been a basketcase loser side for 15 years and HBG have been the majority owners for most of that period.

Once you have sacked multiple coaches, replaced the roster a bunch of times, turned over the CEO and Chairman... at some point heads needs to roll at the Board level, which has NEVER happened within HBG except by their own hand. Constant in-fighting within HBG that has included knifing of Wests Tigers board members.

Then they accept expert recommendations to implement an independent board, which they recant in less than 12 months.

Then the most senior member of the remaining HBG crew steps down from the WT Board himself after his social media shows many dubious and tasteless accounts being followed.

That's all fact, no speculation. I've had enough with the factual and evident incompetence.
 
gallagher said:
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
Click to expand...
Hopefully, the NRL don't read the relentless tirades on here. A couple of months down the track . . . things settling down . . . season about to start . . . and SO many here just can't let go.
Take a deep breath folks. We have zero choice apart from HBG. We got over that fXXn disgrace to our club, this is a mere speed bump compared to the embarrassment of half the JV not being able to pay it's bills.
 
Jolls said:
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.
Click to expand...
They have proven very recently that’s not acceptable to HBG
 
The Chad said:
As an idea..

The majority vote on here is to remove HBG.

Let's, for arguments sake, say that HBG are guilty of poor management.

That said, they can be commended for their continued investment in not ONLY Wests Tigers, but Wests Ashfield & BJRLC as well. They don't NEED to invest into Balmain- they chose to, for whatever reason you want to believe.

I made a vague point eons ago & was quickly accused of blaming Balmain...but I'll bring up a point/suggestion again.

The REAL problem at Wests Tigers, as I see it, isn't HBG. It's that HBG (or anyone else- it could have been the other way around) has 90% majority ownership. This is a joint venture with only one side of the venture contributing.

In any business, the bigger contributor will expect bigger say.

There's been a few on here suggest we would be better off bought out by someone new- Laundy was suggested a few times.

That all leads to removing HBG. Some fans want HBG out regardless of new owners or not- funding takes care of itself apparently.

Why has NOBODY suggested that Balmain requires someone to buy it out, and then contribute equal parts to what Wests/HBG contribute to Wests Tigers?

If both JV clubs were to contribute the same amount (or even similar), you could have equal representation from BOTH clubs on the Wests Tigers board. You then get independents to be the difference in voting- could be 1, 3, 5...however many you want to add.


The idea that "HBG out" solves everything assumes that whoever takes over isn't going to have exactly the same 'me first' agenda you accuse HBG of having.

I don't want HBG out. I think they should be encouraged to do more. I also think they shouldn't be in a position to carry the can for Wests Tigers. Any individual (or group) that owns a majority of any board is in a position to manipulate the state of play in their favour.

Fans want HBG out.

I want Balmain in.

PVL, Darcy Do-Little, the CEO, the fans...instead of throwing out what we have, instead focus on getting someone else to buy in. Balmain is ripe for taking over, investing in the juniors, the leagues club- according to a few, running a pokies club is simple, right?

That way, Wests Tigers can have a fair, even board made up of two clubs sharing responsibilities & costs & funding etc.
Click to expand...
"true to the review".

HBG in if they stay true to the recommendations. The ones they promised they would.

This is about independence of the WT board.
 
gallagher said:
But what if a private owner fails too badly? Like Tinkler? They were very lucky that Wests in Newcastle bought them.
Click to expand...
Mate they all ready treat the club like they own it.
Adopt a system of governance that puts the best people for WTs in control and make them accountabile and then no problem with HBG.
I think most were satisfied at the end of this year until the blow up.
 
Telltails said:
Mate they all ready treat the club like they own it.
Adopt a system of governance that puts the best people for WTs in control and make them accountabile and then no problem with HBG.
I think most were satisfied at the end of this year until the blow up.
Click to expand...
I'm still satisfied. Somewhat.
Posters have said that 'they've burnt the club to the ground' and the ' value of the brand has been halved'. I think it's a huge over reaction.
We havn't lost a player because of it, or had mass resignations.
The most important person is the CEO, and I'm spewing that Richardson has left. But lets see how johnny cougar goes before we start protesting at games.
We had about 8 years of Pascoe's bumbling around, we're still better off than those days.
 
gallagher said:
I'm still satisfied. Somewhat.
Posters have said that 'they've burnt the club to the ground' and the ' value of the brand has been halved'. I think it's a huge over reaction.
We havn't lost a player because of it, or had mass resignations.
The most important person is the CEO, and I'm spewing that Richardson has left. But lets see how johnny cougar goes before we start protesting at games.
We had about 8 years of Pascoe's bumbling around, we're still better off than those days.
Click to expand...
For me it is more the lack of trust that I have in HBG. The review found serious governance issues at Wests Tigers under HBG Stewardship, these issues haven't been resolved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 931 (members: 20, guests: 911)
Back
Top