It's time to take the fight back to HBG

terriaa said:
Panthers and All Blacks have great systems that young players identify with, and aspire to be a Panther or an All Black. Culture, identity and success. We don't have any of those. Shaun was at Penrith, he knows the level of investment required.

This article was written over 3 years ago, raises some interesting points, let me know if you can't read it and I'll copy it for you.

www.smh.com.au

Disjointed ventures: Why history haunts Dragons and Tigers

Can a joint venture be a long-term success in the NRL? The results suggest not, but Dragons and Tigers heavyweights are not losing faith as the struggling clubs prepare for their Magic Round clash.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
Click to expand...
I don't disagree
 
Id love to know who's genius idea it was to have a committee who selected the team, the years this took place and the people who were part of it
 
Papacito said:
On one hand people want HBG less involved, but at the same time want them to spend more money? That usually results in giving up a board spot (i.e Balmain's).

The only realistic way the club ever achieves a genuine semblance of independence is to be a profitable business that's less reliant on HBG financially. The club then gets a bit of a shot to put forwards more independent directors.
Click to expand...
That's not accurate. Look at every other league's club-based team. They are supported by the league's clubs, pathways, and all, but have a far more independent board structure.

League clubs exist for that very reason. It's in their title and charter to fund clubs.

We are the only club where the league's club board holds its club to ransom over control and funding, which comes down to the debenture system and egos.

How many other CEOs have to thank their league's club for sending the team to Vegas? It's really, really sad how much these guys need to be pandered to.
 
weststigers said:
This is where that naivety shines through.
Click to expand...
No mate naivety would be thinking that HBG is going to sell WT or NRL is going to hold them accountable.

It hasn't happened in 20 years and having a 21st year of failure isn't changing that.

Just like our NRL team, they do enough to sustain us and keep our nrl license going and that's all they'll do. NRL isn't stepping in.

If we want to be successful, we have to do it on our own accord.

We can all make them out to be as much of a villain as you want but nothing is changing from their end.
 
tig_prmz said:
No mate naivety would be thinking that HBG is going to sell WT or NRL is going to hold them accountable.

It hasn't happened in 20 years and having a 21st year of failure isn't changing that.

Just like our NRL team, they do enough to sustain us and keep our nrl license going and that's all they'll do. NRL isn't stepping in.

If we want to be successful, we have to do it on our own accord.

We can all make them out to be as much of a villain as you want but nothing is changing from their end.
Click to expand...
Bit of a segway there to put it mildly. You can keep assuming Shaun has unfettered control of the spending if you must.

Let's for the sake of moving forward assume he is independent from the board and has total financial control (which he doesn't).

Did you say you would fund the juniors with sponsors?

What is the revenue plan to fund, say a $5 million spending investment each year.
 
I have difficulty understanding the overall situation.
HBG owns us and as such has some slight obligation to the NRL to maintain WT as a playing entity.
They have zero obligation to maintain us as a successful club with a winning team. Apparently they have no interest in that either.
The NRL has no direct control or influence over our owners to encourage them to develop or maintain us as a winning team.
There does not appear to be any legal avenues for us either.
 
hammertime said:
That's not accurate. Look at every other league's club-based team. They are supported by the league's clubs, pathways, and all, but have a far more independent board structure.

League clubs exist for that very reason. It's in their title and charter to fund clubs.

We are the only club where the league's club board holds its club to ransom over control and funding, which comes down to the debenture system and egos.

How many other CEOs have to thank their league's club for sending the team to Vegas? It's really, really sad how much these guys need to be pandered to.
Click to expand...
I'm interested what club you are talking about?

Penrith is a textbook example. The leagues club owns the football club. The leagues club board and the football club board are the same. It's exactly the opposite of an independent board.

Sharks are almost identical to Penrith. Same people on both.

I think both clubs need to run technically separate meetings and minutes, but they can often be on the same day in the same room with the same people.

Both of the above have obviously had a lot of success. It might even suggest that being independent isn't all that it's cracked up to be?

At the end of the day, the less reliant Wests Tigers as a team is on HBG for corporate welfare, the better.

I have zero idea how the Wests Tigers books are run, but some other clubs tend to retain profits generated within the football operations to spend how they see fit. It seems like a more enviable position to be in than going cap in hand each year and preparing a funding proposal.

I can't really speak to the ego and ransom stuff as I've never even met anyone from HBG. Nor do I have any interest in defending them beyond pointing out what's factual or common sense - at least from my experience working with various boards.
 
innsaneink said:
This list is from 99 and aare only those whove repped Wests Jnrs (AI)


[td]- Andrew Everingham
- Mitch Achurch
- Nathan Waters
- Daniel Fitzhenry
- Liam Fulton
- Bryce Gibbs
- Chris Lawrence
- Beau Ryan
- Simon Dwyer
- Brett Hodgson
- John Skandalis
- Harvey Howard
- Isaac DeGois
- Luke Covell
- Ben Roberts[/td]
[td]- Shane Perry
- Ryan Hoffman
- Shannon McDonnell
- Dean Collis
- Daine Laurie
- Shannon Gallant
- Peni Tagive
- Rocky Trimarchi
- Ray Cashmere
- Ken McGuiness
- Kevin McGuiness
- Ciriaco Mescia
- Steve Georgallis
- Gray Viane[/td]
[td]
- William Mataka
- James Tedesco
- Shaun Spence
- David Nofoaluma
- Matt Groat
- Jesse Sue


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Last decade approximately
- Ray Stone
- Justin Matamua
- Tallyn Da Silva
- Kit Laulilii
- Lachlan Galvin
- Jordan Miller
- Luke Laulilii
- Kit Laulilii
- Heath Mason
- Heamasi Makasini
[/td]
Click to expand...
I realise it's a Wests Jnrs list but strange it leaves off Doueihi, Tavana, Madden, Seyfarth, Andrews, Bula, Haywood, Lanyon, Sukkar etc...and that's just the ones off the current Tigers Top 30.
 
Papacito said:
I'm interested what club you are talking about?

Penrith is a textbook example. The leagues club owns the football club. The leagues club board and the football club board are the same. It's exactly the opposite of an independent board.

Sharks are almost identical to Penrith. Same people on both.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you are right, they aren't independent, but they are accountable. Both the Panthers and the Sharks are voted in by the league's club members.
 
NT_Tiger said:
I have difficulty understanding the overall situation.
HBG owns us and as such has some slight obligation to the NRL to maintain WT as a playing entity.
They have zero obligation to maintain us as a successful club with a winning team. Apparently they have no interest in that either.
The NRL has no direct control or influence over our owners to encourage them to develop or maintain us as a winning team.
There does not appear to be any legal avenues for us either.
Click to expand...
Seems like you understand it perfectly...it is wot it is
 
NT_Tiger said:
I have difficulty understanding the overall situation.
HBG owns us and as such has some slight obligation to the NRL to maintain WT as a playing entity.
They have zero obligation to maintain us as a successful club with a winning team. Apparently they have no interest in that either.
The NRL has no direct control or influence over our owners to encourage them to develop or maintain us as a winning team.
There does not appear to be any legal avenues for us either.
Click to expand...
Some nuances

  • There are no owners on the board of HBG, just directors. Do not confuse the two. Owners have the right to act for themselves; the other acts on behalf of members.
  • Those directors are supposed to work for the betterment of the club; it's why they exist in the first place.
  • The NRL controls the licenses for the teams. There are obligations within that license agreement, especially with the funding tied to it, for the club to commit to. Such as to not bring the game into disrepute. So the NRL has power there.
  • Some arguments could have a legal justification with the prior instability in HBG, but nothing has been fruitful.
 
hammertime said:
Don't make it a magpies vs tigers thing mate. Distracts from the main issue (the debentures) and devolves into those silly old arguments.
Click to expand...
Well mate it's a Magpies thing. Not a Balmain/Magpies thing.

Magpies are intent on pushing a Magpie agenda on Wests Tigers. They don't accept the team. Nothing to do with Balmain.

Hope you can see the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 2,000 (members: 2, guests: 1,998)
Back
Top