What was his term? I read somewhere the other day it was for “at least 6 months” which would mean it was for as long as it takes, I could be wrong on that, though.
Taking a wrecking ball to the club! (Recent Media Reports)
- Thread starter Snidest 0
- Start date
- Status
Ok, thank you 👍
Jolls
Well-known member
"Backs? Irrelevant! The Front Rower’s Club (FRC) on Boardroom Politics"
Ah, Rugby League. The ultimate battle of brawn, skill, and the occasional questionable haircut. And within its glorious chaos lies an unspoken truth: backs are just there to make up the numbers. After all, why tackle when you need to protect your beautiful teeth (ask AD)? This very mindset is surprisingly transferable to boardroom politics, as seen in the ongoing drama within the Holman Barnes Group Board. Strap in, folks—this one’s messier than a prop’s post-match night on the town.
The Front Rowers’ Club: We Carry the Team (and the Company)
We know our value. We’re the grinders, the lifters, the eaters of raw meat. Without our heavy lifting, the backs, and to a lesser extend edges and lock, would have nothing to prance around with. The same logic applies to the “core” members of the Holman Barnes Group Board, who see themselves as the backbone of the company. While some factions argue over trivial matters like “vision” and “strategy,” these stalwart decision-makers are busy doing the real work—like securing their parking spots at board meetings.
Backs: Masters of Flair, Legends of Irrelevance
What do backs do, anyway? Sure, they have their moments—darting runs, graceful sidesteps, the occasional try—but they’re essentially accessories to our’ brilliance. The parallel in the Holman Barnes saga? Those pesky “innovators” and “change agents” trying to bring in fresh ideas. Cute, isn’t it? But just as wingers can’t tackle, these progressive thinkers clearly don’t belong in the trenches of corporate warfare.
Infighting: A Scrum Without the Rules
The Holman Barnes Board’s factions are like forwards and backs at a team dinner after too many beers. The FRC believe their grind deserves more respect, the while the backs insist they’re the ones scoring the metaphorical tries and the edges and lock sit on the side singing “What about me” (badly) The result? Chaos. One faction is focused on the traditional game plan—tried, tested, and slow-moving—while another advocates for bold plays that risk losing the ball entirely. And just like in every NRL game, someone’s going to end up with a black eye. Did you walk into a door Julie?
The Solution: Bring Back the Biff
The Front Rowers’ Club is a sacred space where big units with cauliflower ears unite to celebrate their indispensability.; coached to do so by the only one with some form of intelligence in the group, the Hooker (G’Day Richo). Perhaps the Holman Barnes Group needs something similar. A place where the forward-thinking strategists (pun intended) can hash things out without interference from the flashier, “big picture” types. After all, nothing resolves a corporate dispute like a little exclusivity and a lot of snacks; or being boxed around the ears by a prop!
The Final Whistle
So, are backs irrelevant? Absolutely. Just as irrelevant as the factions on the Holman Barnes Board, and die hards on this forum from both former clubs, who think their ideas matter more than teamwork. At the end of the day, it’s not about who’s right or who’s scoring—it’s about driving the business forward (pun still intended). If the board could channel even a fraction of a the FRC’s unity, they might just make progress.
Until then, the FRC will be over here, carrying the load without complaint and cheering when the edges and lock get stepped by a back or a back gets absolutely polaxed by a second rower.
When they finally realise that they need the unity of the FRC and come together on the same page – other teams will start to quiver!
Written and authorised by the Hooker on behalf of the FRC sitting on the sidelines having a beer and a laugh!
Ah, Rugby League. The ultimate battle of brawn, skill, and the occasional questionable haircut. And within its glorious chaos lies an unspoken truth: backs are just there to make up the numbers. After all, why tackle when you need to protect your beautiful teeth (ask AD)? This very mindset is surprisingly transferable to boardroom politics, as seen in the ongoing drama within the Holman Barnes Group Board. Strap in, folks—this one’s messier than a prop’s post-match night on the town.
The Front Rowers’ Club: We Carry the Team (and the Company)
We know our value. We’re the grinders, the lifters, the eaters of raw meat. Without our heavy lifting, the backs, and to a lesser extend edges and lock, would have nothing to prance around with. The same logic applies to the “core” members of the Holman Barnes Group Board, who see themselves as the backbone of the company. While some factions argue over trivial matters like “vision” and “strategy,” these stalwart decision-makers are busy doing the real work—like securing their parking spots at board meetings.
Backs: Masters of Flair, Legends of Irrelevance
What do backs do, anyway? Sure, they have their moments—darting runs, graceful sidesteps, the occasional try—but they’re essentially accessories to our’ brilliance. The parallel in the Holman Barnes saga? Those pesky “innovators” and “change agents” trying to bring in fresh ideas. Cute, isn’t it? But just as wingers can’t tackle, these progressive thinkers clearly don’t belong in the trenches of corporate warfare.
Infighting: A Scrum Without the Rules
The Holman Barnes Board’s factions are like forwards and backs at a team dinner after too many beers. The FRC believe their grind deserves more respect, the while the backs insist they’re the ones scoring the metaphorical tries and the edges and lock sit on the side singing “What about me” (badly) The result? Chaos. One faction is focused on the traditional game plan—tried, tested, and slow-moving—while another advocates for bold plays that risk losing the ball entirely. And just like in every NRL game, someone’s going to end up with a black eye. Did you walk into a door Julie?
The Solution: Bring Back the Biff
The Front Rowers’ Club is a sacred space where big units with cauliflower ears unite to celebrate their indispensability.; coached to do so by the only one with some form of intelligence in the group, the Hooker (G’Day Richo). Perhaps the Holman Barnes Group needs something similar. A place where the forward-thinking strategists (pun intended) can hash things out without interference from the flashier, “big picture” types. After all, nothing resolves a corporate dispute like a little exclusivity and a lot of snacks; or being boxed around the ears by a prop!
The Final Whistle
So, are backs irrelevant? Absolutely. Just as irrelevant as the factions on the Holman Barnes Board, and die hards on this forum from both former clubs, who think their ideas matter more than teamwork. At the end of the day, it’s not about who’s right or who’s scoring—it’s about driving the business forward (pun still intended). If the board could channel even a fraction of a the FRC’s unity, they might just make progress.
Until then, the FRC will be over here, carrying the load without complaint and cheering when the edges and lock get stepped by a back or a back gets absolutely polaxed by a second rower.
When they finally realise that they need the unity of the FRC and come together on the same page – other teams will start to quiver!
Written and authorised by the Hooker on behalf of the FRC sitting on the sidelines having a beer and a laugh!
Last edited:
Kaito
Well-known member
Splendid post lmao. Well written
Well that wasn’t my intention …. I was thinking about the best way to describe my relationship to Balmain and wests magpies and I’ve come up with this analogy .
I see them as the parents who won’t stop fighting leading up to your wedding , where you turn around and say “if you don’t sort your shit out youre not coming to the wedding” .
Doesn’t mean you don’t love and appreciate them . It just means thier toxicity is going to ruin all the good times ahead .
It’s up to them at that point .
It's the people on a board that makes it successful nothing to do with the title of the board itself
A level of accountability can make people achieve things they didn't know they were capable of.
I don't care who, or what, or why, agitated the board into action because after thirteen seasons of failure ,- and plenty of others held accountable for that - it was about time the board started to cop the heat too.
A level of accountability can make people achieve things they didn't know they were capable of.
I don't care who, or what, or why, agitated the board into action because after thirteen seasons of failure ,- and plenty of others held accountable for that - it was about time the board started to cop the heat too.
gallagher
Well-known member
that's the difference in our thinking. I believe they are doing something you believe they are doing nothing. Time will tell I guess.
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
When the original petition had reference to old Magpies die hards and includes a request for Liquor and Gaming and the minister to get involved and when discourse on here is hoping and praying for Liquor and Gaming iintervention that's spiteful.
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
I suppose some from the former Balmain cohort would have buried the Wests brand totally if the roles were reversed in in 2015 so it's projection and gaslighting.
That means you still have trust in the place . It’s probably a good thing to be honest . You haven’t been completely jaded like a lot of us .
man ! Honestly ! What is the point of this rhetoric ? We’ve all explained ourselves 100 times over , and you still go back to that well .
Give it a rest ….
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s bullshit though ! What’s the point of his post … at best it’s a straw man , realistically it’s to cause outrage , and trolling ….
I’m sick of reading it . I haven’t seen a single person identify as a Balmain fan .
So stop the pearl clutching .
Posts like that are meant to outrage and divide . They get the response they deserve
gallagher
Well-known member
Trust was restored when Richardson was appointed. He's lasted a year and is talking enthusiastically about our future. I'm only listening to him, not social media rumours.
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
Why is age relevant.
I don't consider myself old at 55 but whether I was in my 60s, 70s, 80 or in my teens or twenties why does that make me more or less important? I am a fan and member and as one my perspective and custom should be considered important by the club.
Footy is an emotional investment. There is little logic to it as a fan.
People are drawn towards the Wests Tigers from different paths......it is relevant.
Around 75, 76 as a new supporter a mate and I in primary school went looking for books on RL history, It made it feel real and gave it an edge I was to young to understand and I'm sure it's the same for some kids today.
Increasingly seeing many sub 30 years old fans with Wests and Balmain jumpers at games. They probably see it as cool and edgy.
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
The relevancy of his appointment was that HBG wanted his appointment.
Other noise we're hearing is regarding possible overreach into ownership issues and an independent board which is also independent from him.
Because it does matter , because your formative years were 10-15 years prior to when the merger happened .
So your allegiances , and lot of the things that are characteristics of yourself like music , movies , sometimes even good , art , taste in general are formed like I’ve said from about years 17-25 of your life .
So if you’ve already been through that period , it’s a lot harder to change that .
Which is why everyone playing the Balmain vs wests thing is like I said coming up to retirement or beyond …
Music is the easiest one to reference for this as it’s pretty obvious .
For me my taste is anything from the late 90s- 00s , but my missus is 2 years older and that was enough for her to be into early 90s stuff , which doesn’t resonate with me .
Just like anything from 2009 onwards , can be a chore me to establish a connection with . None of that is steadfast , people change obviously .
Its just an acknowledgement that for me , if I can’t get into a song , I realise “could be bias’ doing their thing , so I’ll give it a few goes to try and change the way I’m hearing that music “
The same logic applies to things like your footy team. Because just like music , when you listen / remember it takes you back to a certain time , and place and nostalgia kicks in .
That’s what age makes a difference. And I’ve no doubt if the merger happened in 2010 I’d be struggling with my allegiance to wests tigers as well , because I would have been through that age group where your most open to change “ .
It’s why if the wests tigers went away , I wouldn’t follow footy at all.
The period of 1998-2008 was the time for me , and everyone my age , that I was most affected by the world around me and it affected my tastes in things.
At 55 , so 15 years older than me , means that for you would have been years 1983-1993. So by the time 2000 rolls around those formative years are well behind you.
It’s not to say you can’t change , of course you can , but it’s to say hey , it’s a lot harder .
I think we can agree. I've seen it from both sides on this forum and I don't necessarily like it either. Both foundation clubs have stuffed up but we still love them and have fond memories of them. I really do think the Magpies copped the brunt of the abuse probably because of the recent poor play by HBG. I just wanted to balance the ledger but it's time to end it and move on.
I accept you at your word that you didn't intend to be condescending.
Magpie_Magic
Well-known member
I understand your point of view but don't believe it relevant in this discussion.
At the end of the day a 75 year old may be a more committed fan than a 12 year old......kids are fickle these day. One day RL the next year basketball.
But again a customer is a customer and older ones hand down their perspective to kids.
It's how the world works.
Yea , but that’s just a case of “heavy is the head that wears the crown” . By having 90% ownership they’re the ones who everyone is going to come after when it goes to shit . It would be no different if it was the blue wiggle or Singo or someone . It’s evolved past prior allegiances . Which is a good thing IMO.
I honestly don’t even think wests when I say HBG. I think “guys who own the wests tigers”. And I’d say that’s the evolution for most people
Changing the name to HBG has done wonders for that . I don’t live in Sydney anymore , so that makes it easier as well
What ? The 12 year old kid compared to a 75 year old aren’t relevant . There’s no correlation …..
It’s literally about the Individual ie. you . And me . And how now as middle aged men , we have formed a lot of our tastes , in fact most , by the time we turned 25-30.
It’s not a competition. It’s about understanding your own bias’ and understanding how your brain is sending signals to affect you emotionally about things “
If you don’t belive me , you just have to google it and there’s a million articles on this . Neuroscientists , psychologists, psychiatrists whatever .
Anyways all i was trying to say is I get how you can feel the way you feel . But I’m also trying to let you know this is why everyone from my age and younger feels a different way .
Which is why age is super important . And by age I mean you have to have been there at a certain point .
Like you could be the same age as me and be from a tribe in Amazon rain forest , so things like 9-11 arnt going to have the same affect on you that they will on me . Obviously .
Just like the mergers arnt going to affect my missus or most women my age , because they don’t care .
It’s obviously relative .
- Status
