Roy Masters on Saints and Wests Tigers Joint Ventures

[shane2801]

Let me start off by saying anyone complaining about bias should go read some old Ray Chesterton articles and read his views on the JV.

The hysterics in this thread so far is ridiculous. It might be an article reporting on the Dragons ownership, but the comparisons with us are pretty relevant with us also being a JV whose ownership has been a major talking point of late. As far as old Roy being pro Magpies and anti Balmain, maybe he is, but maybe he's just talking about the Magpies role in the JV the same way the media have talked up Balmain's role for the last 16 yrs as the dominant partner with the spiritual home ground being LO, constantly being referred to as the Black and Golds, and Balmain legends constantly being wheeled out when you need a quote from an ex player.

So I know from experience how out of joint your nose would get reading stuff like this, but just keep in mind this is how a lot of Western Suburbs people have felt for yrs. a lot have even walked away.

As a former Magpie I wholeheartedly agree..

 

[magpiecol]

While I understand the article is uncomfortable for Balmain diehards because it talks about Balmains diminishing role in the Wests Tigers ownership; where has Roy blatantly pushed his own agenda?

It's his ongoing bias from a supposedly 'serious journalist' that is irritating to people.
All good things to say about one side of the joint venture and nothing good to say about the other.
Needs a slap in the face and a kick up the rear.

Get your hand off it. He is just stating the facts. Balmain is broke. True or false? I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield are paying half of Balmains debt. True or false. I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25%. True or false. True.

Are Wests Ashfield riverting back to name the team the Wests Magpies? No.

Are Wests AShfield keeping the name Weststigers? Yes.

So I know who needs a splap in the face and a kick up the rear, and it's not Roy. Grow up.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

While I understand the article is uncomfortable for Balmain diehards because it talks about Balmains diminishing role in the Wests Tigers ownership; where has Roy blatantly pushed his own agenda?

It's his ongoing bias from a supposedly 'serious journalist' that is irritating to people.
All good things to say about one side of the joint venture and nothing good to say about the other.
Needs a slap in the face and a kick up the rear.

Get your hand off it. He is just stating the facts. Balmain is broke. True or false? I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield are paying half of Balmains debt. True or false. I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25%. True or false. True.

Are Wests Ashfield riverting back to name the team the Wests Magpies? No.

Are Wests AShfield keeping the name Weststigers? Yes.

So I know who needs a splap in the face and a kick up the rear, and it's not Roy. Grow up.

It's very sensitive for some.

Don't mean that as an insult, but it's the truth. It's the elephant in the room that flips some people out when acknowledged.

 

[tigermac88]

While I understand the article is uncomfortable for Balmain diehards because it talks about Balmains diminishing role in the Wests Tigers ownership; where has Roy blatantly pushed his own agenda?

It's his ongoing bias from a supposedly 'serious journalist' that is irritating to people.
All good things to say about one side of the joint venture and nothing good to say about the other.
Needs a slap in the face and a kick up the rear.

Get your hand off it. He is just stating the facts. Balmain is broke. True or false? I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield are paying half of Balmains debt. True or false. I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25%. True or false. True.

Are Wests Ashfield riverting back to name the team the Wests Magpies? No.

Are Wests AShfield keeping the name Weststigers? Yes.

So I know who needs a splap in the face and a kick up the rear, and it's not Roy. Grow up.

It's very sensitive for some.

Don't mean that as an insult, but it's the truth. It's the elephant in the room that flips some people out when acknowledged.

I agree GNR that's why I say both sides need to let it go and unite as one.. It's the best way to stop all these rubbish articles from both sides. Balmain had their run now it's Wests Ashfields turn… Swings and roundabouts like the saying goes

 

[Swordy]

For me personally, you can never take away the awesome memories I have of watching the mighty Balmain Tigers at Leichhardt.

Thats why i couldn't give a rats who owns us, how much percentage of who is what, or even whether the team is called the magpies. You know, i really dont care.

I support the Wests Tigers in all their forms, with faults, warts and all. Ill get p***ed off when they lose, and glow when they win.

The rest just doesnt matter anymore…..its 25-30 years ago when either side was a genuine force, and 16 years ago when they even had a first grade side.

Ill remember forever, but i enjoy now.

 

[Muffstar]

I think the article was fair, but Roy tends to favour the Magpies side of things which is fair enough since he was a big part of things when they were going ok.

An example of this would be when there were rumours of Harry possibly buying the tbe JV and Roy said something along the lines that it was worth 40 or 50 million or some exorbitant amount which would favoured the Maggies.

Just don't take him too seriously or don't read his columns if it will annoy you.

 

[shane2801]

While I understand the article is uncomfortable for Balmain diehards because it talks about Balmains diminishing role in the Wests Tigers ownership; where has Roy blatantly pushed his own agenda?

It's his ongoing bias from a supposedly 'serious journalist' that is irritating to people.
All good things to say about one side of the joint venture and nothing good to say about the other.
Needs a slap in the face and a kick up the rear.

Get your hand off it. He is just stating the facts. Balmain is broke. True or false? I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield are paying half of Balmains debt. True or false. I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25%. True or false. True.

Are Wests Ashfield riverting back to name the team the Wests Magpies? No.

Are Wests AShfield keeping the name Weststigers? Yes.

So I know who needs a splap in the face and a kick up the rear, and it's not Roy. Grow up.

Well said MagpieCol. Hats off to you.

 

[Russell]

Don't care what he says either - he is an idiot.

However - Facts are facts and should be stated as such.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25% - Fact.

In five years Balmain may take their share to 50% or Wests may go to 100% - Fact.

Whoever owns it - it can never be Wests Magpies, Western Suburbs or anything else. It must be Wests Tigers to continue the clubs registration - Fact.

It also must keep the logo - Fact.

 

[Magpie_Magic]

While I understand the article is uncomfortable for Balmain diehards because it talks about Balmains diminishing role in the Wests Tigers ownership; where has Roy blatantly pushed his own agenda?

It's his ongoing bias from a supposedly 'serious journalist' that is irritating to people.
All good things to say about one side of the joint venture and nothing good to say about the other.
Needs a slap in the face and a kick up the rear.

Paul Kent is a serious journalist but his articles were anti Wests Magpies and used to annoy me too.

So is Gus.

Now you know what it feels like.

Sad it took this to get some Balance in the JV. Might get some closet maggies fans getting into the WT now as well without losing Any Balmain or Strickly WT fans.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Christ who cares… In terms of vendettas and agendas it's not a pimple on the arse of the agenda Phil Rothfilth has against Gus Gould.

 

[diedpretty]

Don't care what he says either - he is an idiot.

However - Facts are facts and should be stated as such.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25% - Fact.

In five years Balmain may take their share to 50% or Wests may go to 100% - Fact.

Whoever owns it - it can never be Wests Magpies, Western Suburbs or anything else. It must be Wests Tigers to continue the clubs registration - Fact.

It also must keep the logo - Fact.

It's good to be so optimistic.

 

[tigermac88]

Don't care what he says either - he is an idiot.

However - Facts are facts and should be stated as such.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25% - Fact.

In five years Balmain may take their share to 50% or Wests may go to 100% - Fact.

Whoever owns it - it can never be Wests Magpies, Western Suburbs or anything else. It must be Wests Tigers to continue the clubs registration - Fact.

It also must keep the logo - Fact.

It's good to be so optimistic.

I'm still yet to see an optimistic or positive post from you diedpretty… Smile mate you'll live longer

 

[NT_Tiger]

I love these threads. It's like watching two, overtired two year olds in a sandpit.

 

[Telltails]

I love these threads. It's like watching two, overtired two year olds in a sandpit.

Have a feeling your not the only one.. all we need now is a Benny Elias to have a say he seems to always have a way of restoring the equilibrium.

 

[Russell]

Don't care what he says either - he is an idiot.

However - Facts are facts and should be stated as such.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25% - Fact.

In five years Balmain may take their share to 50% or Wests may go to 100% - Fact.

Whoever owns it - it can never be Wests Magpies, Western Suburbs or anything else. It must be Wests Tigers to continue the clubs registration - Fact.

It also must keep the logo - Fact.

It's good to be so optimistic.

It is not optimism - it is in the charter that both joint venture members signed.

 

[cktiger]

While I understand the article is uncomfortable for Balmain diehards because it talks about Balmains diminishing role in the Wests Tigers ownership; where has Roy blatantly pushed his own agenda?

It's his ongoing bias from a supposedly 'serious journalist' that is irritating to people.
All good things to say about one side of the joint venture and nothing good to say about the other.
Needs a slap in the face and a kick up the rear.

Get your hand off it. He is just stating the facts. Balmain is broke. True or false? I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield are paying half of Balmains debt. True or false. I know, I know, true.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25%. True or false. True.

Are Wests Ashfield riverting back to name the team the Wests Magpies? No.

Are Wests AShfield keeping the name Weststigers? Yes.

So I know who needs a splap in the face and a kick up the rear, and it's not Roy. Grow up.

Suggest you get your hand back on it - you won't be getting any joy from Masters fictional dribble.
In fact I wonder if you bothered to read it or are just sticking up for your old mate?
He writes conjecture and total lies when referring to WestsTigers and as a journalist should cop it for doing so.
1\. Tigers have a name but no equity - well in fact they have 25% and 5 years to come up with 2.7 million.
Of course 'in their parlous state' dear old Roy thinks this is highly unlikely.
2\. Ashfield has ruled out 100% ownership because it would mean rebranding to Wests Magpies - one big lol at that.
3\. Magpies will control where all future games are played (and obviously Leichhardt Oval looks like missing out) ?

I don't have a problem with the Magpies - that Masters considers himself above 'sports' journalists but then happily perverts reality to suit himself is my problem.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

1\. Tigers have a name but no equity - well in fact they have 25% and 5 years to come up with 2.7 million.
Of course 'in their parlous state' dear old Roy thinks this is highly unlikely.

And he's not the only one. If you stopped typing with your heart for a minute maybe you could see it is actually a realistic possibility given this saga has already been dragging on for well over 10 yrs.

 

[Telltails]

1\. Tigers have a name but no equity - well in fact they have 25% and 5 years to come up with 2.7 million.
Of course 'in their parlous state' dear old Roy thinks this is highly unlikely.

And he's not the only one. If you stopped typing with your heart for a minute maybe you could see it is actually a realistic possibility given this saga has already been dragging on for well over 10 yrs.

Any thing is a possibility - Bruce Gordon now owns 50% of the Dragons, it happens.
Roy has done his job stirred the pot and I can see the smirk of delight on his face now.

 

[cktiger]

1\. Tigers have a name but no equity - well in fact they have 25% and 5 years to come up with 2.7 million.
Of course 'in their parlous state' dear old Roy thinks this is highly unlikely.

And he's not the only one. If you stopped typing with your heart for a minute maybe you could see it is actually a realistic possibility given this saga has already been dragging on for well over 10 yrs.

Seriously though … $2.7 million over 5 years is not a lot of money to raise.

 

[Patts]

Don't care what he says either - he is an idiot.

However - Facts are facts and should be stated as such.

Wests Ashfield will own 75% and Balmain 25% - Fact.

In five years Balmain may take their share to 50% or Wests may go to 100% - Fact.

Whoever owns it - it can never be Wests Magpies, Western Suburbs or anything else. It must be Wests Tigers to continue the clubs registration - Fact.

It also must keep the logo - Fact.

I'm not trying to be a smart arse but I think your facts are wrong.
Balmain own 25% on paper but they have zero equity in that 25%. The NRL actually owns that 25%.
It's like me saying I own a million dollar house when I owe the bank a million dollars for it - I don't actually own any of it.
Balmain's goal in the next 5 years is to try and pay back the NRL so that the do actually own 25%. It's not to move their ownership back to 50%. If they can't pay back the NRL for their 25% than the NRL will essentially repossess it and on sell it to another party. A party that the Wests Ashfield approves of.