HBG, Independent Directors Sacked

cochise said:
Really poor decision when even Benji said he didn't deserve it.

All brought about by the instability that HBG caused.
Click to expand...
...or... genius move to lock down the next great coach in the NRL.

In the wake of last December’s fun n games, this forum was awash with alarmist nonsense about our season having been hijacked and the players will be irreparably affected by the drama. How we were going to hell in a hand basket 🥴

Yet here we are - a couple of months on .... I have not seen a more upbeat playing group than the current team who are all 100% behind the coach. Two good wins in the trials and it’s onwards & upwards 👍

Benji is a humble man so his comments that he didn’t deserve the extension show the class of the guy,

Time will tell, but I reckon HBG’s decision to lock down the coach long term will prove to be a master stroke.
 
Bus 2 Terrigal Lagoon said:
...or... genius move to lock down the next great coach in the NRL.

In the wake of last December’s fun n games, this forum was awash with alarmist nonsense about our season having been hijacked and the players will be irreparably affected by the drama. How we were going to hell in a hand basket 🥴

Yet here we are - a couple of months on .... I have not seen a more upbeat playing group than the current team who are all 100% behind the coach. Two good wins in the trials and it’s onwards & upwards 👍

Benji is a humble man so his comments that he didn’t deserve the extension show the class of the guy,

Time will tell, but I reckon HBG’s decision to lock down the coach long term will prove to be a master stroke.
Click to expand...
A coach that has no desire to coach elsewhere and was widely regarded as a poor coach. There was no reason to extend Benji at that time. I am a huge Benji fan and believe he will be a great coach.

The extension was to calm player unrest over the board room dramas. Same reason the clauses are still in Luai's contract despite being heavily rumoured before the drama.
 
cochise said:
A coach that has no desire to coach elsewhere and was widely regarded as a poor coach. There was no reason to extend Benji at that time. I am a huge Benji fan and believe he will be a great coach.

The extension was to calm player unrest over the board room dramas. Same reason the clauses are still in Luai's contract despite being heavily rumoured before the drama.
Click to expand...
So it was a good decision
 
Lestronge said:
I used to feel the same as you . But watching guys like @Bus 2 Terrigal Lagoon and @BZN , and that guy on social media Stamo , deliberately sow division as if it were sport , and treat it like a game of 1 upsmanship , makes me realise it’s just not possible .
And the weird thing is I’m not even sure they know these people on HBG . It’s like a loyalty to nothing , knowing the years of failure at the club , and the poor judgement of the people running it , are irrelevant to them as long as the idea that wests are getting one over Balmain or something like that .
It’s a weird headspace to be .” I don’t care if clowns are running the show into the ground , they’re my clowns”.
Click to expand...
You seem to be confusing - having an alternate view to yours, with “sowing division”.

I guess you’d prefer the forum to be an echo chamber.

As someone who doesn’t agree with those who wanted to storm Wests Ashfield and overthrow the club’s hierarchy - to now be accused of sowing division - Mildly amusing 🤣
 
Bus 2 Terrigal Lagoon said:
The club wasn’t blown up.

In fact I can’t recall a more positive vibe heading into a new season.

Go back and listen to your chat with Mielekamp.
The place is humming !!!
Click to expand...
Our current CEO is on trial , HBG run the joint so he will spin what ever he is instructed other wise he could be shown the door , extending Benji was a reaction due to the way December’s blow up panned out , media talk of players looking to leave if the coach go moved on , Luai speaking direct to the board that’s why they did it , yes 2 good results in the trials , playing group behind the coach100% , but having PVL having to get involved showed how much the league was fed up with the way HBG operated , once PVL got involved sacked board members and chair all offered jobs back , remember they didn’t walk they were sacked by HBG , the people backing HBG all the time need to look at facts and take of your rose glasses , PVL got involved and now nothing from HBG at all , why you may ask , well I say PVL warned them that if it kept up it would get messy and those debenture holders would be in a spot of bother , just my opinion ,
 
The problem I see in this thread is that we (the royal we) are all symptoms of the major issue the club has. Now it is not as simple as making one change and fixing the joint - the issue is complex with a number of factors at play: self interest; defence of, and links to the foundation clubs; ownership issues; and one upmanship (which is endemic). None of those are the real issue at the club though, and despite HBG's poor performance as the owners, they are also only part of the problem.

Most of the "symptoms" we see are protectionist measures: Balmain vs Wests vs Wests Tigers vs HBG. The cause is that we (Wests Tigers) have never progressing our mindset and structue from a joint venture to a unified entity. That small change in attitude and outlook is the key to success.

Until that shift happens there will be no change - animosity will continue to exist and petty arguments over the number of magpies on the jumper and the colour of the home strip will forever dominate common sense.
The problem isn’t Balmain; it isn’t Wests; it isn't the 90% ownership model. We have fared significantly better than the Northern Eagles and in my view (due to the debenture system) we are probably a little behind St George Illawarra (although I understand that significant infighting still exists) as an NRL JV.

I personally don't think the "division will naturally die out is valid". It may be the case - but can we really afford another 25 years of Wests v Balmain v WestsTigers V HBG?

We don't need to change the ownership structure or get bought out bring about success - in fact I think it would be counter productive as "Wests Ashfield" would circle the wagons in defence of "their" property.

There really isn't that much required, in my view, to turn it around. There is no use trying to address the rusted ons from any of the self interested groups - what is required is the the grown ups to sit in a room and realise that the issue at the heart of the matter is that 25 years on we are still trying to operate as a joint venture instead of a single entity - Wests Tigers.

The action required from HBG is symbolic in the first instance - it simply neeeds to anounce the death of the joint venture and that we are now one unified club. Legally that is not quite true as shareholder representation at HBG is required - but at WT level we should be focussed only on delivering Wests Tigers results.

This would finally address the matter. HBG ownership does not need to change and junior competitions remain the same. HBG does need to internally address the incongruency between the community clubs focus and Wests Tigers but that is work for down the track. The mindset change is all that is initially required as the consitution already caters for the "at odds" issue of Community Clubs and Rugby League.

This is how elite clubs run.

There would be a need, in due course, to align the boards and review to constitution to ensure that the foundation club's heritages and junior systems are protected. This could easily be wrapped up in a HBG led governance review.

The key though, is that the Wests Tigers board is empowered to make the decisions that best support Wests Tigers under a clear set of financial and decsion making delegations. At the administrative (board level), where we are talkng strategy and $, there is no need for Balmain or Wests representation. This should be retained at the ownership (HBG) level with constitutional protection/by laws to prevent interference with the WT board.

I envisage a board made up of suitably qualified personnel with a liaison representative from HBG. There should be no factional ties at this level in the organisation. Wests MAgpies and Balmain Junior representation should be part of the football department.

Richo was heading in this direction, but clearly his bulldozing style scared the horses. Was it self interest? Maybe. Was it Richo talking out of school and making deals behind the boards back? Maybe. But we will never know so what is the point of arguing about it.

The right thing for us to be doing is getting on board the united club train and convincing our peers, our mates and the membership of HBG that we are better off all rowing in the same direction.

My gut feel is that HBG felt change was forced on them last time - "we" need to have them come to the realisation that unity is necessary and for them to make the change of their own volition.

Of course HBG will have an opinion too - we need to get a foot in the door and start the discussion.
 
Jolls said:
The problem I see in this thread is that we (the royal we) are all symptoms of the major issue the club has. Now it is not as simple as making one change and fixing the joint - the issue is complex with a number of factors at play: self interest; defence of, and links to the foundation clubs; ownership issues; and one upmanship (which is endemic). None of those are the real issue at the club though, and despite HBG's poor performance as the owners, they are also only part of the problem.

Most of the "symptoms" we see are protectionist measures: Balmain vs Wests vs Wests Tigers vs HBG. The cause is that we (Wests Tigers) have never progressing our mindset and structue from a joint venture to a unified entity. That small change in attitude and outlook is the key to success.

Until that shift happens there will be no change - animosity will continue to exist and petty arguments over the number of magpies on the jumper and the colour of the home strip will forever dominate common sense.
The problem isn’t Balmain; it isn’t Wests; it isn't the 90% ownership model. We have fared significantly better than the Northern Eagles and in my view (due to the debenture system) we are probably a little behind St George Illawarra (although I understand that significant infighting still exists) as an NRL JV.

I personally don't think the "division will naturally die out is valid". It may be the case - but can we really afford another 25 years of Wests v Balmain v WestsTigers V HBG?

We don't need to change the ownership structure or get bought out bring about success - in fact I think it would be counter productive as "Wests Ashfield" would circle the wagons in defence of "their" property.

There really isn't that much required, in my view, to turn it around. There is no use trying to address the rusted ons from any of the self interested groups - what is required is the the grown ups to sit in a room and realise that the issue at the heart of the matter is that 25 years on we are still trying to operate as a joint venture instead of a single entity - Wests Tigers.

The action required from HBG is symbolic in the first instance - it simply neeeds to anounce the death of the joint venture and that we are now one unified club. Legally that is not quite true as shareholder representation at HBG is required - but at WT level we should be focussed only on delivering Wests Tigers results.

This would finally address the matter. HBG ownership does not need to change and junior competitions remain the same. HBG does need to internally address the incongruency between the community clubs focus and Wests Tigers but that is work for down the track. The mindset change is all that is initially required as the consitution already caters for the "at odds" issue of Community Clubs and Rugby League.

This is how elite clubs run.

There would be a need, in due course, to align the boards and review to constitution to ensure that the foundation club's heritages and junior systems are protected. This could easily be wrapped up in a HBG led governance review.

The key though, is that the Wests Tigers board is empowered to make the decisions that best support Wests Tigers under a clear set of financial and decsion making delegations. At the administrative (board level), where we are talkng strategy and $, there is no need for Balmain or Wests representation. This should be retained at the ownership (HBG) level with constitutional protection/by laws to prevent interference with the WT board.

I envisage a board made up of suitably qualified personnel with a liaison representative from HBG. There should be no factional ties at this level in the organisation. Wests MAgpies and Balmain Junior representation should be part of the football department.

Richo was heading in this direction, but clearly his bulldozing style scared the horses. Was it self interest? Maybe. Was it Richo talking out of school and making deals behind the boards back? Maybe. But we will never know so what is the point of arguing about it.

The right thing for us to be doing is getting on board the united club train and convincing our peers, our mates and the membership of HBG that we are better off all rowing in the same direction.

My gut feel is that HBG felt change was forced on them last time - "we" need to have them come to the realisation that unity is necessary and for them to make the change of their own volition.

Of course HBG will have an opinion too - we need to get a foot in the door and start the discussion.
Click to expand...
All that was needed was for the independent Wests Tigers board to be allowed to continue to act in the best interests of Wests Tigers.
That was blown up
 
tigertragic said:
All that was needed was for the independent Wests Tigers board to be allowed to continue to act in the best interests of Wests Tigers.
That was blown up
Click to expand...
That is 100% true - but painting HBG as the enemy isn't going to solve the situation, it will have them defending their position. We need the HBG directors (debenture holders) to respond to reputational and commercial pressure - this can be pushed externally but really needs to come from within the organisation.

As a newly minted WA/HBG member I intend to lobby internally for unity of purpose - I tust that there are other WA/HBG that will start pushing the barrow as well.
 
Bus 2 Terrigal Lagoon said:
You seem to be confusing - having an alternate view to yours, with “sowing division”.

I guess you’d prefer the forum to be an echo chamber.

As someone who doesn’t agree with those who wanted to storm Wests Ashfield and overthrow the club’s hierarchy - to now be accused of sowing division - Mildly amusing 🤣
Click to expand...
Nobody was doing that ! Thats absolute hyperbole if I’ve ever seen it . They used their only avenue for protest to emphasise a point .
There’s zero constitutional way for people to affect change in the club. There’s no way for opposing ticket to run . That ticket could have the smartest brains in the world with a bunch of money and contacts , and there’s no way for that to happen . Zero !
Like I said … constant spin and shifting the narrative . The point of my previous post was about people universally wanting a successful football club ; and you shift it to be about the individuals.
Like i said .. because they represent what you and yours are , or you associate yourself with that .
It’s the same thought ideology of why wives stay with convicted murderers , heinous people etc.
they be a clown , but they’re my clown . I just don’t get it …. And I never will .
And the way you’re saying “storming the castle” as if the fanbase is fickle and not absolutely patient is annoying .
For the first time since I can remember people are actually pointing the spotlight on the real issues . The wrong people making the wrong decisions.
And the fact your see it as some slight on yourself … just proves how screwed your ideology is .. For the billionth time . If the club had found success and sustained it both off the field and on the field, I’d be pro HBG with you . Eg. We were like the broncos who had 2 lean years and the whole place was gonna get burnt to the ground , fans were gonna abandon the team etc. it was pathetic .
But That’s not the wests tigers fanbase. We have been the opposite , quick to defend and close shop around anyone critical of the club , and its ownership . Until now . And it’s not knee jerk and it’s not mob mentality . It’s 26 years of failure with a few years in the middle of infield success in spite of the failure .
Our owners of our club . Both wests and Balmain have failed us . They’ve failed you . They’ve failed me . They’ve failed our kids . The fact this doesn’t upset you…. Well I dunno. It upsets me . Because I genuinely love the wests tigers . Both sides of it .
 
Jolls said:
That is 100% true - but painting HBG as the enemy isn't going to solve the situation, it will have them defending their position. We need the HBG directors (debenture holders) to respond to reputational and commercial pressure - this can be pushed externally but really needs to come from within the organisation.

As a newly minted WA/HBG member I intend to lobby internally for unity of purpose - I tust that there are other WA/HBG that will start pushing the barrow as well.
Click to expand...
After 10-15 years of HBG debenture closed shop incompetence I wish you well.
 
Jolls said:
That is 100% true - but painting HBG as the enemy isn't going to solve the situation, it will have them defending their position. We need the HBG directors (debenture holders) to respond to reputational and commercial pressure - this can be pushed externally but really needs to come from within the organisation.

As a newly minted WA/HBG member I intend to lobby internally for unity of purpose - I tust that there are other WA/HBG that will start pushing the barrow as well.
Click to expand...
Do you think the debenture holders will ever give up on that position and change it , take away that power they have , I say o chance , until that is gone and certain people loose protection nothing will change , we need to be able to vote as members just like normal clubs , these folks on the current board can still run for spots but they know they most likely won’t be selected as there would be loads of new members joining just like Jolls has just done , also on voting a club could have 10 thousand members and on the vote night only 1500 have voted , most patrons don’t vote , they just see their mates , eat , drink , play pokies , I was a director for years at a club and when elections were on we would put on a free feed , basic stuff , and hope our members rocked up but most times it was a small amount , and voting numbers were always low compared to the actual amount of members , all clubs know this , so if we could vote I would think an increase in members would happen and voting numbers would go up .in the case of Wests Ashfield and Wests Tigers boards
 
Last edited:
Jolls said:
That is 100% true - but painting HBG as the enemy isn't going to solve the situation, it will have them defending their position. We need the HBG directors (debenture holders) to respond to reputational and commercial pressure - this can be pushed externally but really needs to come from within the organisation.

As a newly minted WA/HBG member I intend to lobby internally for unity of purpose - I tust that there are other WA/HBG that will start pushing the barrow as well.
Click to expand...
Could be a good thing mate but beware , if people on boards don’t like what your doing ,a club ban could be on the cards 😂
 
Where HBG were the majority on the WT board in the past...

Could someone list their past achievements? Just to be fair and objective to HBG leadership and stewardship.

We seem to be focusing on one decision they made which has yet to play out in its entirety. Even Don Bradman got the occasional duck, so let's look at the whole picture.

Happy to hear from @Bus 2 Terrigal Lagoon @The Chad and any other supporters and defenders of this most recent change.
 
426Tlgerland said:
Do you think the debenture holders will ever give up on that position and change it , take away that power they have , I say o chance , until that is gone and certain people loose protection nothing will change , we need to be able to vote as members just like normal clubs , these folks on the current board can still run for spots but they know they most likely won’t be selected as there would be loads of new members joining just like Jolls has just done , also on voting a club could have 10 thousand members and on the vote night only 1500 have voted , most patrons don’t vote , they just see their mates , eat , drink , play pokies , I was a director for years at a club and when elections were on we would put on a free feed , basic stuff , and hope our members rocked up but most times it was a small amount , and voting numbers were always low compared to the actual amount of members , all clubs know this , so if we could vote I would think an increase in members would happen and voting numbers would go up .in the case of Wests Ashfield and Wests Tigers boards
Click to expand...
Wests Tigers won't change as it is a Pty Ltd and will be appointed under the authority fo HBG. The debenture system is really difficult - and there would have to be a need for change. In Illawarra's case they couldn't pay the bills so when WIN stepped in and took over the debt they insisted on modernising the corporate structure. So I think there would need to be a catalyst for that to happen and I can't see Wests Ashfield going broke.

I know that I can't even be eligble to vote for another three years so it is about playing the long game. There has to be some unrest as there was the supposed motion to have the debenture system scrapped. I have heard no more of that - but at least I now have the ability to communicate with those in charge.

There are probably a few options that could be investigated - an open letter to the boards asa precurser to pulling togther enough memebers to put something meaningful forward for debate at the AGM. I think the key to it is what the debenture holders are hearing around the traps and their "need" to feel wanted. IF there is a big enough faction of rusted ons - it will be difficult - but it is hard to imagine that every debenture holder is blind to the issues.

Bit like eating an elephant I guess.
 
Last edited:
Jolls said:
Wests Tigers won't change as it is a Pty Ltd and will be appointed under the authority fo HBG. The debenture system is really difficult - and there would have to be a need for change. In Illawarra's case they couldn't pay the bills so when WIN stepped in and took over the depth they insisted on modernising the corporate structure. So I think there would need to be a catalyst for that to happen and I can't see Wests Ashfield going broke.

I know that I can't even be eligble to vote for another three years so it is about playing the long game. There has to be some unrest as there was the supposed motion to have the debenture system scrapped. I have heard no more of that - but at least I now have the ability to communicate with those in charge.

There are probably a few options that could be investigated - an open letter to the boards asa precurser to pulling togther enough memebers to put something meaningful forward for debate at the AGM. I think the key to it is what the debenture holders are hearing around the traps and their "need" to feel wanted. IF there is a big enough faction of rusted ons - it will be difficult - but it is hard to imagine that every debenture holder is blind to the issues.

Bit like eating an elephant I guess.
Click to expand...
I have drawn my line in the sand and will push for unity with whoever I can. If there is enough pushing the same barrow and potentially if someone like @TheEnz can get himself elected onto the board then we have a voice inside the tent.

So much easier to get the joint aligned if your inside the tent mixing with the right crowd and sewing the seeds of change.
 
People refer to "HBG" as the owners and being in control because "the people/ individuals" who actually are the beneficiaries of the system that empowers them to represent HBG are not worth a pinch of salt when it comes to running a successful Football club - and yet their defenders will go after Shane Richardson - like him or not - whose record in his designated role spoke for itself.
Shaun M is now the man to resolve all and lead us to the promised land - just like Richardson before him - until that is the faceless few calling the shots decide otherwise and doing a good job or not will not necessarily be the reason why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 463 (members: 9, guests: 454)
Back
Top