How can we make our memberships count ??

H

happy_tiger

Well-known member
I'm going to be honest

I'm not sure about every aspect of our JV constitution

So I have this question , how easy would it be to have the members having a voting right in WT's decisions as most other clubs do ??

And if it isn't that hard , why can't we vote by not renewing our memberships until they change it ??

Maybe some more legally talented brains that mine can explain why it can or can't happen ??
 
Voting rights are made up by becoming a member of either Wests Or Balmain Leagues's Club and from attending their AGM and voting from there, it then filters up through both sides to represent either side and then to the Wests Tigers board.
 
In response to your original post Happy Tiger, i think something inclusive in a WT Membership entitles you to a greater say with voting rights specifically for WT rather than a Wests or Balmain is something for consideration.
 
The issue is we have no voting rights in the WT's

I'm not interested in becoming a member of Wests or Balmain and then waiting three years to have a say

We are the WT's and yet again proves where we fall down and why our memberships are so low compared to other clubs

I hope the independent board can make some major overhauls to the complete set up of the club asap

We are run like some 1950's communist country
 
I think the major problem with all this is a complete lack of understanding about ownership/company structures and how these work. Wests Tigers is a joint-venture (obviously), with TWO shareholders. They are Balmain Football Club and the Wests Group. Only the SHAREHOLDERS have voting rights, as they put the money into the club.

What is being asked by the OP, and by plenty of previous posters and topics is a complete change of the company structure. As we've all seen with the NRL's independent board changes, this is a very lengthy and sometimes painful process. What would essentially have to happen, is Balmain/Wests would have to give up part of their share of WT to a 'members group', similar to the Souths model. The problem here is that said 'members group' would be required to prop up losses the same way Wests and Balmain are required to now (hence why Balmain require NRL to assist holding their share), and put money in pretty much ever year. This isn't as much an issue with Souths as the agreement held with the private owners sees Crowe/Holmes-a-Court basically prop up the losses and the members group hold some seats on the board, and therefore a say in the running of the club. Considering our financial position and that of the WT shareholders, this isn't a realistic option for the club.

I'd also like to ask - why should members of Wests FC, Wests Ashfield & Balmain FC as shareholders give up part of their ownership to members of Wests Tigers? As a member of Balmain FC and a rusted on Wests Tigers fan (but not a WT member), it's actually quite an insult to say that I don't have the best interests of WT in front of mind when voting on decisions with WT - as I'm sure it would be to any of the 10 current WT directors or the 4 from those who will remain. The problems in the past 6-12 months stem as much from the board not being willing to make any decisions while awaiting the new board as opposed to bickering between the two factions.

Also, one quick point in regard to voting rights, it's quite a common practice with any clubs for members to have a waiting period (3 years is also common) before having voting rights.
 
Actually its not common practice

Every golf club I've been a member of , I have voting rights from day squat

And your suggesting we keep a few hundred dinosaurs happy , when we have thousands of potential members who won't join the WT's as they have no say in either 3 years or from the day they join and have to put up with the hair brained ideas from two clubs who are essentially dead

And the board whether they be from Wests or Balmain isn't listening to the voice of the FANS , you know the WESTS TIGERS fans

The board is just worried FIRSTLY about Wests or Balmain and then the WT's secondly

Problem is apart from a few hundred members no one gives two hoots about Wests and Balmain anymore

Why should anyone become a member of the WT's when they have no say in anything

Screw it , with this mentality the NRL might as well pack us up and send us to PNG

At least they will appreciate it
 
I posted this in another topic a couple of weeks back Happy, don't know how many people saw it as the topic ended up being deleted:

Now I don't know how the voting structures work with the Rugby League clubs as I've never been a voting member of either, but the football team I follow in the Spanish La Liga, Athletic Bilbao is a registered association. So instead of a limited company type scenario where you purchase shares in the club, you can only purchase membership. From these members, they vote the delegates who will run the club.

You could purchase a non-ticketed or ticketed membership (which would be a nightmare controlling with our 3-ground scenario,) and for your financial injection into the club you get voting rights. 30,000 ticketed members paying $500 (just an arbitrary value,) each would guarantee $15,000,000 in revenue yearly, plus the NRL club grant and sponsorship.

Imagine that, a $7m grant, $15m in voting members with sponsorships, stadium payments and merchandising on top of that. The club would never go broke again.

However, the stumbling blocks would likely include;

- The eventual need to play most/all games out of Homebush to accommodate large ticketed member numbers. This would also be needed to drive down the cost of ticketed memberships to encourage larger numbers;
- Following on from the previous point, initially we could feasibly retain one game at LO and CSS which would require separate ticketing to attend to avoid the problem of having more ticketed Homebush members than seats at either suburban ground. This removes the parochialism on which the game was founded which may be an issue for some of the fans over the age of 25 and would most likely still represent a large percentage of the paid up membership base. However, I feel this is key in moving away from the two clubs of the past and forging the proper identity of the Wests Tigers, whilst still tipping the hat to the parent clubs;
- Agreement on reasonable pricing for non-ticketed members;
- The organisational structure of the governing body;
- Maintaining the lineage to Wests and Balmain, especially with junior development;
- Most importantly, purchasing the club from BRLFC & Wests Group and it's transition into a registered association.

I honestly think it could work if these problems could be resolved.
 
The only way to do it is if the NRL take away the joint venture from the current stakeholders in Wests and Balmain. Though there would probably some legal stuff to get through.

They can then form a new district club (ie WTDFC) but must select one area to cover. They might already have taken over the Macarthur district as Wests aren't involved with the running of the junior league.

The new WTDFC can then add an option to become a football club member with voting rights as part of it's membership packs.

Simple. :question:

:sign:
 
Buying a membership here is nothing … all you are buying is a season ticket. You get a bit of merchandise and that's it! Other clubs members have voting rights. I agree .. the incoming board needs to review this and allow members to vote. But, given the way this board has run a closed shop for their own personal benefit and convenience (and have been caught out as being incapable of running anything beyond a simple errand to the shops), I am not hopeful. To break the Wests/Balmain mentality they would need to relocate to either Perth or Singapore I think.
 
I'm not a fan of members/fans having voting rights.

We can vote on who to have on the board but we should be kept as far away from decision making as possible.

It's in our nature to invest heavily emotionally in our team and this leads to us being fickle. We think more from our hearts than our heads. It would be a really move IMO.

In saying that, we deserve the right to voice our opinions and the people in charge have the responsibility to hear us out.

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
 
:smiley: @tig-prmz,you make valid points in the thread,I would like to say that these ppl we have in charge of the Wests Tigers should take their own agendas and flush them and start getting on with the job of running the club as a proffesional business,this way more ppl would take an interest in our club and we could even build up bigger numbers in the fan base.As per thread they dont really care about our opinion,it falls on deaf ears as much as we would like to be heard while this debarcle of a board exists things will only get worse….A NEW BROOM SWEEPS CLEAN...Wests Tigers now and forever
 
I'm sure you would find if you paid an extra say $50 on each Season Ticket but in return for that extra $50 you get a right to vote i'm sure most people would fork out that extra $50 to have a say which direction they would like the club to go .
I remember i was a voting member for Balmain when all the members went to the club if they wanted to merge with Wests think it was early 99 ,Kieth Barnes , Pearce , Blocker all these guys were there and voting themselves
 
@Staks said:
The only way to do it is if the NRL take away the joint venture from the current stakeholders in Wests and Balmain. Though there would probably some legal stuff to get through.

They can then form a new district club (ie WTDFC) but must select one area to cover. They might already have taken over the Macarthur district as Wests aren't involved with the running of the junior league.

The new WTDFC can then add an option to become a football club member with voting rights as part of it's membership packs.

Simple. :question:

:sign:
Click to expand...

The NRL doesn't have the ability to take over the joint-venture, the joint-venture is actually a shareholder in the NRL (technically the ARLC, but same-same). The only thing the NRL has the ability to do is take back the licence for entry into the competition.

Also, while logically a new district club makes sense, it's not financially viable. There is no way for the club to prop-up losses without a Leagues Club or similar backing them, and I can't see any of those willing to be involved if they have no say in the running of the organisation. You'd also have to find people with good enough business credentials to sit on the board and run it well for free (It's forgotten that the board members don't receive a cent from WT, and in the Balmain board's case, don't receive a cent for that either), highly unlikely given the NRL can't find a single person in 5 months.

I hate to be a killjoy, but while all of these ideas sound great and so simple and self-explanatory in text on a forum, they're unrealistic for our situation and our market.

I'd also like people who are continuously slagging off the board about living in the past to provide specific examples of times when a board decision has been made purely in the interest of protecting Balmain or Wests, and not at all in the interest of Wests Tigers…....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 334 (members: 4, guests: 330)
Back
Top