Lee & JP finally lose the confidence of the Board??

[Todd Packer]

Was it even really 2000 fans though? That's a poor number to start with. You get more signatures for a petition to local council to replace the wheely bins.
When you consider their supporters touted on here for I believe it was "Penrith supporters, shopkeepers, anyone" that number is pretty pathetic.
The only number that counts because they're the only verifiable fans is how many of those signatures were members?

 

[innsaneink]

I wonder how many were EX - members

Numbers are irrelevant now...the petition has achived its goal, but continue to bring up the "pathetic numbers" Not much left eh?

 

[Todd Packer]

I wonder how many were EX - members

Numbers are irrelevant now...the petition has achived its goal, but continue to bring up the "pathetic numbers" Not much left eh?

Well there's the question of why one of the podcasters was on here supporting calls for immediate sweeping changes to the club?
Aren't we all supposed to be waiting for the results of the review?

There's that to ponder.

Sort of brings in to question the motivation for the review don't you think?

 

[Todd Packer]

Ink I accept that your motivations are with merit. I just think you're all being taken for a ride by dudes with personal grudges and a need to for self promotion and it's all a board level stink playing out in public.

 

[WesternSuburbsBoy]

Ink I accept that your motivations are with merit. I just think you're all being taken for a ride by dudes with personal grudges and a need to for self promotion and it's all a board level stink playing out in public.

The club has been leaking shit to the media for years but hey it's the podcasters fault for trying to enforce change isn't it?

 

[Mistymuzzle]

100%. I just don’t get it.

Not a fan of the pod or hosts but they went out and did something. All I do is talk shit on here. At the end of the day they support something I like and they want the thing we all like to be better. What’s not to get behind here?

100% of the panty bunching and bed wetting here is petty jealousy that the "other" forum were the ones that got this happening.

Weak and petty.

 

[Todd Packer]

The club has been leaking shit to the media for years but hey it's the podcasters fault for trying to enforce change isn't it?

Is that really what you read there?

 

[supercoach]

So the DT think it’s unreasonable that the fan base demand answers after two consecutive spoons and countless final free years, not to mention stuff up after stuff up.

They badly need click bait, and Where do you get it….write something negative about the Weststigers, it’s a winner every time.

 

[Kelce68]

There is zero reason that a tired fanbase pushing for change is a bad thing.

Zero.

 

[Telltails]

So the DT think it’s unreasonable that the fan base demand answers after two consecutive spoons and countless final free years, not to mention stuff up after stuff up.

They badly need click bait, and Where do you get it….write something negative about the Weststigers, it’s a winner every time.

The fans deserve better - now apparently we don't.

 

[tony soprano]

Yet another reason i don't trust anything from the Murdoch Media,it is all agenda and the promotion of conspiracy theories

To be fair we are talking about footy here how much professionalism do people expect with footy?

 

[The Fresh Oil]

Ink I accept that your motivations are with merit. I just think you're all being taken for a ride by dudes with personal grudges and a need to for self promotion and it's all a board level stink playing out in public.

Just let your thought process play out a bit.

What you are suggesting is a fan ran and funded podcast who wants to know why the club they support has failed for decades has organized a petition to get a review done just to give promotion to a podcast they do on the shittest club in the NRL.

Huh? On what planet does that make any sense? I actually think their numbers would be higher if wests were achieving something on the field. Who wants to listen to a podcast talking about your team getting lapped for the 50th time.

If I was a moronic conspiracy theorist like your little mate I’d think that you guys are plants from either inside the BOD or a rival club loving that wests are a meme club. I just can’t accept that people this dumb are walking around in society.

 

[Todd Packer]

This is my final say on this. (cue the cheering)
What upsets me about this whole process is the way it's been played out and the waste of a chance for real reform it represents.
We only had one chance to do this properly. We can't have another crack next year and the year after.

The petition was presented and before you could blink two guys were appointed, one of whom was later revealed to already have a strong connection to the club. (still yet to be explained why this wasn't immediately revealed to the public).

This was our chance for lasting change and we've blown it by not having a considered response and appointing a Shane Richardson type with extensive winning club land experience and no connection at all to Wests. The reviewers needed to come in with a clean slate and working experience with winning clubs. The guys appointed have impressive resumes, none of which involves running a football club successfully.

Instead what we have is board members brawling in public.

The chance for meaningful reform is lost.

 

[tony soprano]

There is zero reason that a tired fanbase pushing for change is a bad thing.

Zero.

If you care to listen there's been a couple of reasons a review played out in the media could end up bad.

It's fine for people to think the review is not all rainbow and sunshine equally ok for people to think it will make WT great again.

 

[The Fresh Oil]

Jesus. What, in the history of wests tigers has not played out in the media. This fan group deserves a team like wests tigers.

 

[Kelce68]

If you care to listen there's been a couple of reasons a review played out in the media could end up bad.

It's fine for people to think the review is not all rainbow and sunshine equally ok for people to think it will make WT great again.

Always happy to listen, Tone, and after listening, I made the judgement that there's zero negative implications for reviewing an underperforming club.

Since you added 'being played out in the media', I agree. That's stupid. But I think that's more a reflection of a PR play from behind the scenes from those who worry they're in the firing line. I don't see the review, by virtue of its intention, being designed to be played out in the media.

But the review itself as a concept, is, in my opinion, unequivocally a good thing for the betterment of the club.

 

[Kelce68]

This is my final say on this. (cue the cheering)
What upsets me about this whole process is the way it's been played out and the waste of a chance for real reform it represents.
We only had one chance to do this properly. We can't have another crack next year and the year after.

The petition was presented and before you could blink two guys were appointed, one of whom was later revealed to already have a strong connection to the club. (still yet to be explained why this wasn't immediately revealed to the public).

This was our chance for lasting change and we've blown it by not having a considered response and appointing a Shane Richardson type with extensive winning club land experience and no connection at all to Wests. The reviewers needed to come in with a clean slate and working experience with winning clubs. The guys appointed have impressive resumes, none of which involves running a football club successfully.

Instead what we have is board members brawling in public.

The chance for meaningful reform is lost.

Independent doesn't necessarily mean no ties to the club at all, in context, it refers to no conflicting interests, i.e., not completed by anybody who is due to be reviewed or connected to the processes to be reviewed.

Gary, the bloke you're referring to, is a historical, financial contributor to the club. You would imagine he would want the best result for the club. However, there is no conflict of interest as neither he, himself, nor the role he has or does play in the club is under review.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it remains independent.

 

[tony soprano]

Always happy to listen, Tone, and after listening, I made the judgement that there's zero negative implications for reviewing an underperforming club.

Since you added 'being played out in the media', I agree. That's stupid. But I think that's more a reflection of a PR play from behind the scenes from those who worry they're in the firing line. I don't see the review, by virtue of its intention, being designed to be played out in the media.

But the review itself as a concept, is, in my opinion, unequivocally a good thing for the betterment of the club.

We both know nothing at WT is unequivocal. The petition advocating the review was discussed in the media to attract attention to the petition. That's just a fact I think.

 

[gallagher]

The review isn't being played out in the media. The media are posting stuff about it but no one involved in the review is going public about anything.

 

[KH1988]

The review isn't being played out in the media. The media are posting stuff about it but no one involved in the review is going public about anything.

People that have been questioned by the reviewers have gone public