Marina Go - Members Q&A

[cunno]

Thanks Ms Go for the presentation. Whilst the message wasn't great news, those listening have had some confirmation of where the club is at. The club is now under close scrutiny of the NRL in terms of it's management and as such the club is being run according to a business model acceptable to the NRL to make up for previous dubious decisions eg back ended contracts and management. I understand that the 'mess' has to be cleaned up but I hope that the NRL keeps members, supporters, sponsors in mind during the whole process so that Wests Tigers don't end up defunct because as an organisation it has been stripped back to an extent to start again. If not managed properly this 'stripping' could put us way behind the eight ball compared to the other clubs and we may not catch up for years or to the point of extinction/relocation.

Good post.
I wonder why it was allowed to get to this stage.
I thought the cap was to protect clubs from themselves….I thought we were always monitored and audited. ...it seems others have stood by and watched us dig ourselves deeper and deeper....While doing nothing.
I know WTs have to take responsibility for our own actions....but when you have a watchdog overseeing all this and all clubs (apparently) then what's the point of them being there if we are allowed to screw ourselves so badly.
WTs really deserve to be very very heavily penalized Imo. ...I know people will point to the next 3 years in this regard....but WTs putting us thru that is why they should be penalized...Our club has effectively brought the game into disrepute imo

You comments raised an idea I hadn't considered before.

Considering our chairperson used to alternate frequently, and our CEOs never lasted more than 4 or so years, I wonder how often the decision makers are more concerned about short-term gain rather than long-term plans. They might talk long-term plans, but what's the point worrying about Years 5 and 6 if you need to see yourself through Years 1-2 first.

It's kind of like governments, they might talk long-term, but everything is dependent on making it to and winning the next election, hence most plans are 3-4 year jobs. Hence back-loading of contracts might become a "worry about it later" or "won't be my problem" issue.

I wonder to what extend previous decision makers were more concerned about getting players on-board, retaining key signatures etc., than the long-term implications. There's evidence enough from the early WT that people are very good at wasting money and making stupid decisions.

As for bringing the game into disrepute, I would argue this is no worse than any other club and not even as bad as our previous worst efforts re Hopoate. Even just quickly - Sharks and coach and peptides, Raiders and coach turnover, Knights private ownership, Parra and Manly board-level struggles, Storm and Bulldogs salary cap scandals etc.

a plausible analogy there jk in regard to the comparison with the political cycle and the emphasis on short term results rather than long term strategy. There are plenty of examples of a quick fix taking precedence then the costs long term ending up far more expensive.

 

[innsaneink]

You've summed up well my feelings jirskyr

 

[balmain boy]

Um, the salary cap is audited retrospectively, unless a club ask for advice to balance their books for the future. You can't be audited for things which haven't happened yet! The salary cap is to stop rich clubs spending more, not to manage the financial decisions of a club.

And yes it's obvious that first Humpty decided to back end contracts, then mayer had the choice of stopping the rot and potentially losing someone like nofo, or some of our youngsters, or continue to back end deals and minimise any short term losses. He obviously chose the latter

We should applaud Go for drawing a line and refusing to jeopardise the financial freedom of the club just to finish 11th than 15th…

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

Ah it's funny, no matter who speaks, they cop a belting from the supporters.

Basically if you win we don't care what the mgmt. says, if we lose, they can't say anything.

It's usually bs…Most people.dont swallow it hook line and sinker

I'm just saying Jirskyr, that if they want to say something. At least drop the waffle, and try to be a bit more specific, at least as much as is possible. Three year window is quite a long time, and it looks like they are deliberately being vague , no doubt on purpose

 

[bp_tiger]

just seen the MS GO spin session. she comes across as everything is in hand and it will all come good by the end of 2017, she also says that they want the FAN BASE to grow by 33% as well as sponsors. well MS GO you may not have 33 fans left by 2017 nor any sponsors. if the cap was that bad how come the NRL had not picked up on it and if we had not dumped 15 players last year what would have happened, i feel there is a lot more to this than what we are been told.

 

[Abraham]

Anyone else have a feeling Liverpool council are making the play and a move to Liverpool on the cards? The member day there too.

In know this is abit delayed, but Marina mentioned in an interview back in March that Leichhardt, Canada Bay, Liverpool, and Campbelltown were the 4 councils that had expressed interest in hosting the new Tiger's HQ.

She then went on to say that Campbelltown and Liverpool had both ramped up their interest in the development recently.

So I think it will be definitely out of those two councils.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Darcy Byrne's unprofessionalism and continuos bashing of the club over LO probably hasn't endeared the club towards Leichhardt Council.

 

[hammertime]

Darcy Byrne's unprofessionalism and continuos bashing of the club over LO probably hasn't endeared the club towards Leichhardt Council.

Agree GNR. The bloke is a politician in the purest sense of the word. Says he loves the Tigers and wants to help, but hasn't backed that up with anything material ever. But to his defense, I think he is somewhat hampered by the absolute nuftie Greenies on the council.

It seems Cambo and Liverpool have a good Liberal/Labor balance that would usually suggest a level of productivity and competence. I would put my money that they are the 2 councils too.

 

[hammertime]

I suspect Wests are only hanging around to March to see how this pans out. At present they are paying $2 mill into WT, hold a 50% shareholding and have virtually no say on how the club is run due to the NRL controlled board. That's pretty poor business and I would suspect that unless they had a bigger say they will walk away. It also will make it difficult for Balmain to sell their share to an outside organization if they can't guarantee that the new half owner will have say how things are run. The perfect setup would be 3 board members from each of the shareholders and an NRL appointed Chairperson to vote on stalemates.

Don't non-profit clubs purely exist for the benefit of the community? Leagues clubs especially were set up specifically to invest in league. I don't know how much needing full control of any organisation they contribute to is a priority for them and really, do you think it should it be if their remit is as above?

From some of the figures I've heard on here too, $2mil is a very small drop in the ocean of their overall income.

I like the current setup at the Tigers. We need 3 NRL board members as governing the management team on emotion, not business acumen is what got us in this mess. The more heads with proven experience, the better.

 

[diedpretty]

I suspect Wests are only hanging around to March to see how this pans out. At present they are paying $2 mill into WT, hold a 50% shareholding and have virtually no say on how the club is run due to the NRL controlled board. That's pretty poor business and I would suspect that unless they had a bigger say they will walk away. It also will make it difficult for Balmain to sell their share to an outside organization if they can't guarantee that the new half owner will have say how things are run. The perfect setup would be 3 board members from each of the shareholders and an NRL appointed Chairperson to vote on stalemates.

Don't non-profit clubs purely exist for the benefit of the community? Leagues clubs especially were set up specifically to invest in league. I don't know how much needing full control of any organisation they contribute to is a priority for them and really, do you think it should it be if their remit is as above?

From some of the figures I've heard on here too, $2mil is a very small drop in the ocean of their overall income.

I like the current setup at the Tigers. We need 3 NRL board members as governing the management team on emotion, not business acumen is what got us in this mess. The more heads with proven experience, the better.

That's the greatest load of rubbish I have read on here in a long time.

 

[Shaneandmaddy]

It's actually a fact, a licensed club is not for profit, and as such profit's do go back to the community.

They can even pay it out of their CDSE (Community expenditure from poker machine profits as a % they must pay if their profit is over $1,000,000)

 

[mctiger]

I suspect Wests are only hanging around to March to see how this pans out. At present they are paying $2 mill into WT, hold a 50% shareholding and have virtually no say on how the club is run due to the NRL controlled board. That's pretty poor business and I would suspect that unless they had a bigger say they will walk away. It also will make it difficult for Balmain to sell their share to an outside organization if they can't guarantee that the new half owner will have say how things are run. The perfect setup would be 3 board members from each of the shareholders and an NRL appointed Chairperson to vote on stalemates.

Don't non-profit clubs purely exist for the benefit of the community? Leagues clubs especially were set up specifically to invest in league. I don't know how much needing full control of any organisation they contribute to is a priority for them and really, do you think it should it be if their remit is as above?

From some of the figures I've heard on here too, $2mil is a very small drop in the ocean of their overall income.

I like the current setup at the Tigers. We need 3 NRL board members as governing the management team on emotion, not business acumen is what got us in this mess. The more heads with proven experience, the better.

That's the greatest load of rubbish I have read on here in a long time.

Yours or the reply?

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[diedpretty]

It's actually a fact, a licensed club is not for profit, and as such profit's do go back to the community.

They can even pay it out of their CDSE (Community expenditure from poker machine profits as a % they must pay if their profit is over $1,000,000)

That's true - but its drawing a long bow to say that they are putting in to the community by propping up an underperforming mismanaged NRL club - i'm sure they would be happy to put their money elsewhere. Marina Go also said in her blurb that Balmain would probably sell their share to an outside organization if they were unable to raise the money they owe. What organization will take that on without any say - another leagues club, maybe the catholic church they are also a non profit organization. What I meant by rubbish was that no large organization be it for profit or not for profit is going to keep throwing in millions of dollars and not have some say in what happens.

 

[hammertime]

I suspect Wests are only hanging around to March to see how this pans out. At present they are paying $2 mill into WT, hold a 50% shareholding and have virtually no say on how the club is run due to the NRL controlled board. That's pretty poor business and I would suspect that unless they had a bigger say they will walk away. It also will make it difficult for Balmain to sell their share to an outside organization if they can't guarantee that the new half owner will have say how things are run. The perfect setup would be 3 board members from each of the shareholders and an NRL appointed Chairperson to vote on stalemates.

Don't non-profit clubs purely exist for the benefit of the community? Leagues clubs especially were set up specifically to invest in league. I don't know how much needing full control of any organisation they contribute to is a priority for them and really, do you think it should it be if their remit is as above?

From some of the figures I've heard on here too, $2mil is a very small drop in the ocean of their overall income.

I like the current setup at the Tigers. We need 3 NRL board members as governing the management team on emotion, not business acumen is what got us in this mess. The more heads with proven experience, the better.

That's the greatest load of rubbish I have read on here in a long time.

Yours or the reply?

Thanks mc. Beat me to it mate.

Just to clarify my comment, the Wests Board guys aren't bad. It sounds like they were far more competent than the Balmain board members. But the perfect mix of business professionals and proud club men is best way forward for this club.

From what I've read, the guys in charge of Wests sound very good. Esp Simon Cook. I don't think he'll rock the boat.

 

[balmain boy]

Why wouldn't they have any say? If their half of the JV was financial they'd have representation on the board.

 

[diedpretty]

Why wouldn't they have any say? If their half of the JV was financial they'd have representation on the board.

They can have their say on whatever they like but when it comes to a vote where there is some disagreement on the NRL board members outvote them every time. If that's the way you want the club run fine. So in reality Wests Group are still putting money in and have as much voting power as Balmain - zip.

 

[Shaneandmaddy]

If it's in the constitution to support league yes they will.

Why are so many bowling clubs closing? It's because they sink large amounts of money in bowls even when the membership diminishes. If a club has 2 grass greens, they cost approx 140k per year to keep up to standard, and if bowlers drop off and hence stop spending money that money is not recouped.

They also receive tax breaks from being a sporting club, so hence why bowling greens stay (along with its in their constitution to support the game of bowls).

Forgive me if i'm wrong but Id be quite certain that Wests Ashfield will have that their mission statement is to support the game of Rugby League, and some of their directors are on the Board of the Wests Tigers

 

[hammertime]

It's actually a fact, a licensed club is not for profit, and as such profit's do go back to the community.

They can even pay it out of their CDSE (Community expenditure from poker machine profits as a % they must pay if their profit is over $1,000,000)

That's true - but its drawing a long bow to say that they are putting in to the community by propping up an underperforming mismanaged NRL club - i'm sure they would be happy to put their money elsewhere. Marina Go also said in her blurb that Balmain would probably sell their share to an outside organization if they were unable to raise the money they owe. What organization will take that on without any say - another leagues club, maybe the catholic church they are also a non profit organization. What I meant by rubbish was that no large organization be it for profit or not for profit is going to keep throwing in millions of dollars and not have some say in what happens.

You are talking about a **leagues** club not sponsoring their sole NRL **league**team. They have a very specific charter and constitution. They've been throwing in millions of dollars for over a decade with partial ownership into a mismanaged club as part of that charter.

..and large corporations do give millions to medical research,sport or other philanthropy without demanding **control** of it. Influence, yes. Management Control, no. Although, maybe CBA should demand full ownership of the clown doctors so they can cut costs and make them dress solely in yellow. #sarcasm

 

[lathami]

I suspect Wests are only hanging around to March to see how this pans out. At present they are paying $2 mill into WT, hold a 50% shareholding and have virtually no say on how the club is run due to the NRL controlled board. That's pretty poor business and I would suspect that unless they had a bigger say they will walk away. It also will make it difficult for Balmain to sell their share to an outside organization if they can't guarantee that the new half owner will have say how things are run. The perfect setup would be 3 board members from each of the shareholders and an NRL appointed Chairperson to vote on stalemates.

Don't non-profit clubs purely exist for the benefit of the community? Leagues clubs especially were set up specifically to invest in league. I don't know how much needing full control of any organisation they contribute to is a priority for them and really, do you think it should it be if their remit is as above?

From some of the figures I've heard on here too, $2mil is a very small drop in the ocean of their overall income.

I like the current setup at the Tigers. We need 3 NRL board members as governing the management team on emotion, not business acumen is what got us in this mess. The more heads with proven experience, the better.

Sorry but I agree with died pretty!
The NRL is a joke, how is it possible when the magpies pay their bills, balmain don't. But the magpies get screwed…

 

[hammertime]

Why wouldn't they have any say? If their half of the JV was financial they'd have representation on the board.

They can have their say on whatever they like but when it comes to a vote where there is some disagreement on the NRL board members outvote them every time. If that's the way you want the club run fine. So in reality Wests Group are still putting money in and have as much voting power as Balmain - zip.

Well the NRL are the major financial contributors. Maybe Harry should get partial ownership, he pays the same as Wests and only gets his logo on the jersey, exactly like the magpie?

You are thinking about everything as a faction, which is fair enough after the past decade. The NRL independent directors are chosen from different industries in apparently a low-paid role. Why would they collude together? There is no benefit to them. In fact, making bad decisions just for a factional reason would hurt their corporate reputation.

The best thing for the Wests Tigers is the current structure.