Roy Masters SMH Article re WT ownership
- Thread starter wtfl1981
- Start date
westTAHger
Well-known member
both clubs have extensive history.
they are now merged as west-tigers.
I grew up a magpie, but since 2000, have wests-tigers blood pumping through my veins.
would hate to see this go down the path of the nothern eagles-manly/north sydney fiasco.
they are now merged as west-tigers.
I grew up a magpie, but since 2000, have wests-tigers blood pumping through my veins.
would hate to see this go down the path of the nothern eagles-manly/north sydney fiasco.
As long as WT is a Joint Venture, there will never really be an impartial board…. How will it be changed when all members of the board have a financial and operational interest in WT.
What is most important is viable WT ownership. A hypothetical 80% Ashfield ownership of WT does not mean the WT revert to Western Suburbs Magpies control. Maybe more influence but the WT brand will not be going anywhere..
Ashfield fully supports WT and are the most logical group to buy out Balmain's share while they are in debt.
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
What is most important is viable WT ownership. A hypothetical 80% Ashfield ownership of WT does not mean the WT revert to Western Suburbs Magpies control. Maybe more influence but the WT brand will not be going anywhere..
Ashfield fully supports WT and are the most logical group to buy out Balmain's share while they are in debt.
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Benjirific
New member
@slick said:
Actually Sironen stepped down from the Balmain and Wests Tigers boards about 2.5 years ago to take up the position as General Manager of Balmain Tigers, so if he was 'only caring about the interests of Balmain Tigers' last year, then clearly he was doing his job.
And just to note, in the time he has been General Manager, the club has gone from a struggling junior league to NSWRL Club Champions, SG Ball Champions (Minor and GF), Harold Matthews Preliminary Finalists and NSW Cup Grand Finalists (WT assistance included).
But this discussion isn't about that, it's about the ownership of the organisation. I can't agree with the proposal that Masters mentioned, because in my opinion, either side holding more than 50% would compromise the club and its direction. What we need is independence from the joint-venture structure, and board members who are passionate about the club but not so directly tied to the board of Balmain or Wests.
@Poppa said:
Balmain are in debt due to bad deals and liabilities with Rozelle site. They have been kept afloat football club wise by Ryde Eastwood. The time has come for Balmain to 'cough up the $$' as 50% owner of WT.
Just to clarify the Wests ownership is split 3-1-1\. Wests Group ownership does not really mean magpies ownership.
Wests Group own 50% of WT
- 30% owned by Wests Ashfield
- 10% owned by Wests Campbelltown
- 10% owned by Magpies Football Club
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
gallagher
Well-known member
@T-D-C said:
I agree but this has to happen from the club first.
As it is.
We use Balmain and Wests heritage jerseys and ignore the wests tigers jerseys from 2000 or 2005.
We use balmain's and west home grounds when there are way better stadiums at our disposal.
We merge the state cup teams but for some reason use balmain and wests jerseys.
\
\
While ever the club portays the clubs as half wests half balmain some of our supporters will see the club as such.
Black_n_White
New member
@gallagher said:
Homebush is walking distance from my home (long walk, but done it), but I all but refuse to attend club games there… it has no soul something is definitely missing atmoshere wise. I Attend every game at Campelltown and Leichardt (love that place) that I can. I also have no problem attending away games as far as at Wollongong.
Better facilities may be there, at the cost of soul.
@galahs said:
I'm not saying there haven't been problems over the years but had Balmain chosen another joint venture partner (or took the chance to stand alone) then Western Suburbs would have been out the back door and had zero interest in the NRL.
Balmain effectively saved Wests from extinction - something that you Wests dinosaurs will never admit.
Obviously being part of a successful joint venture isn't to your liking.
To be honest , at the time , I wished both Balmain and Wests could have both survived in their own right - but we are what we are now.
I can't see there would be any way that the team will EVER be rebranded as the Magpies (which is what you and your ilk really want)
On that note I suggest you trot back to the Wests forum and pray for Balmain's demise along with the rest of your friends.
Gary_Bakerloo
New member
This development, whilst not surprising, highlights exactly why both clubs went down the JV path. Painful, but right decision.
diedpretty
Well-known member
]But this discussion isn't about that, it's about the ownership of the organisation. I can't agree with the proposal that Masters mentioned, because in my opinion, either side holding more than 50% would compromise the club and its direction. What we need is independence from the joint-venture structure, and board members who are passionate about the club but not so directly tied to the board of Balmain or Wests.
\
\
The club is already being compromised by one side of the partnership failing to meet its contractual obligations - if one side of the partnership is providing more than 50% of the finacial agreement then they should be entitled to more than 50% of the voting rights - thats standard business practice. The only options i can see are :
1\. Accept the offer of debt payment and lose some voting rights until the debt is repaid
2\. Refuse the loan and try to raise the money from another source and maintain equal rights
3\. Become insolvent and have their share of WT sold off to a 3rd party or Wests Group
i would think No 1 would be the safest and most logical option.
\
\
The club is already being compromised by one side of the partnership failing to meet its contractual obligations - if one side of the partnership is providing more than 50% of the finacial agreement then they should be entitled to more than 50% of the voting rights - thats standard business practice. The only options i can see are :
1\. Accept the offer of debt payment and lose some voting rights until the debt is repaid
2\. Refuse the loan and try to raise the money from another source and maintain equal rights
3\. Become insolvent and have their share of WT sold off to a 3rd party or Wests Group
i would think No 1 would be the safest and most logical option.
We're talking 200k right? That's 2/5 of SFA for an NRL club. Hardly call that "compromising" the Wests Tigers. The income from former Balmain fans from memberships and gate receipts would be more than that.
diedpretty
Well-known member
@Yossarian said:
Thats not quite right - according to the article the debt is $2.3 million - 200K is how much Balmain is already in default by not meeting the deadline for paying their share.
diedpretty
Well-known member
The article is a bit light on detail - doesn't mention what the debt of $2.3 mil is and who has made the call for it to be paid - i'm guessing its a combined payment to WT that Wests and Balmain pay equally - i think the article is implying Wests have paid their share and there has been a call ( from who i don't know ) for Balmain to pay their share. Why they are up for $200k in default payments is anyones guess - it would be nice to get the detailed story from someone more in the know.
Staff online
-
DempsModerator