Taking a wrecking ball to the club! (Recent Media Reports)

[twentyforty]

that's the difference in our thinking. I believe they are doing something you believe they are doing nothing. Time will tell I guess.

It appears to me that you are deliberately misinterpreting my post.
Please tell me, who do you think “they” refers to?

 

[oldprop]

"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!

Don’t usually pay much attention to what the hooker says. They tend to be a bit mouthy and when was the last time you saw him take a hit-up? But as usual I go where he goes. Well said.

 

[BZN]

I’m an owner and I don’t see it as spiteful.
I see it as a stepping stone to rid WA members of this archaic debenture system.

1...When you say you're an owner, what are you an owner of.
2...WHY IN YOUR OPINION DO WE NEED TO RID WA MEMBERS OF WHAT YOU SAY IS AN ARCHIAC DEBENTURE SYSTEM?

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

It doesn't really matter. We have no say.

 

[hammertime]

Mate, I worked with politicians not in politics and it was a few years ago now. And as a breed I don't have a high regard for them but there are always exceptions e.g surprisingly for some, Michael Costa.
I think I said in my last post I may have got you wrong.
We can skip the rest because, on your last sentence, we are 100% in agreement.

All good mate. Thanks for understanding my view. I worked at the federal central level back in the day. I wandered the back of Parliament House when Johnny H was around. Showing my age! Interesting about Costa - can't remember too much about him.

Despite our different viewpoints on what is going on, I think we both have our fingers crossed for the same conclusion and we get some good news before the trials kick off. Excited to see who the independents will be.

 

[twentyforty]

And the debenture holder is there for life, so death is the only real limiting factor to their tenure 🥴
Do you think this would pass the pub test ?

No, but Somehow they managed to push it through before closing time.😂

 

[liltiger]

I don’t actually care who or how at the end of the day someone be it the owners &/or board did their job and did it well - they showed action which was going to create sizeable change. They actually showed leadership at the top instead of pushing it all down field.

Agree, my point is that without the recommendation of the review they may or may not have ever approached Richo. It was to demonstrate that the guys conducting the review knew exactly what they were doing and their recommendations wernt to be just taken with a grain of salt but taken extremely seriously.

 

[TigerJunior4]

You’re bringing out all the hate now aren’t you little man. I’m guessing you’re about 165cm in elevator shoes. Walk tall little man.

That’s actually a pretty accurate description of me 😂.

You’ve got me all figured out 😆.

 

[hammertime]

1...When you say you're an owner, what are you an owner of.
2...WHY IN YOUR OPINION DO WE NEED TO RID WA MEMBERS OF WHAT YOU SAY IS AN ARCHIAC DEBENTURE SYSTEM?

2. Because it's a bad structure. Basic corporate governance. Protected groups are for private ownership where people have their capital invested - they are personally impacted by poor decisions and therefore there is an auto mechanism built in for change.

Listed companies answer to shareholders, Public bodies answer to voters and clubs answer to members. All types have mechanisms built in.

The necessity to do that (in regard to WT) will diminish if the review is implemented in full. But they still should change it.

 

[BZN]

Dude. Gallagher asked what evidence there was that someone wanted to undermine the initial review. That's the evidence. That's all. I also believe the majority all want to achieve the same goal and Richo was just deliberate in some words to ensure he set it up for conclusion.

But I'm happy with the statement the other day. Simon Cook was great. If it goes through, and WT becomes separated, we can stop all this.

However, I hope that HBG will take the initiative to fix its governance. Not under any petition or anything, but just because it's the right thing to do. It's not a good structure.

.. and you want to talk balmain again like everyone seems to? Go read my prior posts. I couldn't be clearer.

I hope you don't mind me asking you to clear something up for me that I didn't understand in your post.

"gallagher asked what evidence there was that someone wanted to undermine the initial review".

You said..."THAT'S THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S ALL"
??? What did you actually mean by this? as at face value what you said doesn't mean anything.

 

[gallagher]

It appears to me that you are deliberately misinterpreting my post.
Please tell me, who do you think “they” refers to?

That's not my intention at all, but apologies. 'They' as in HBG. I believe they are implementing the review.

 

[BZN]

I have 40+ years of being a dork…it’s kind of hard not to with this much practice 😂😂😂

As you would know from being a psychologist, people really don't change very much do they.
So I have to agree with what you said about yourself, once a dork always a dork.

 

[hammertime]

I hope you don't mind me asking you to clear something up for me that I didn't understand in your post.

"gallagher asked what evidence there was that someone wanted to undermine the initial review".

You said..."THAT'S THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S ALL"
??? What did you actually mean by this? as at face value it doesn't mean anything.

There was a list of items.

 

[BZN]

that the normally silent (true owners of the club, game ) supporters have spoken, enough is enough.

You must be kidding us 🤔 with this post Merlot "that the normally silent [true owners of the club, game] supporters have spoken, enough is enough".

EACH AND EVERY TIME I COME ON HERE AND SPEAK FROM A MAGPIES POV, THERE'S AN "OUTROAR" OF POSTERS PUTTING ME DOWN.

AND JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR "ONCE AGAIN", I HAVE NEVER SAID I WANT THE MAGPIES BACK OR FOR THE JV TO SPLIT UP.

 

[cochise]

1...When you say you're an owner, what are you an owner of.
2...WHY IN YOUR OPINION DO WE NEED TO RID WA MEMBERS OF WHAT YOU SAY IS AN ARCHIAC DEBENTURE SYSTEM?

I'm an owner as well.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

You must be kidding us 🤔 with this post Merlot "that the normally silent [true owners of the club, game] supporters have spoken, enough is enough".

EACH AND EVERY TIME I COME ON HERE AND SPEAK FROM A MAGPIES POV, THERE'S AN "OUTROAR" OF POSTERS PUTTING ME DOWN.

AND JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR "ONCE AGAIN", I HAVE NEVER SAID I WANT THE MAGPIES BACK OR FOR THE JV TO SPLIT UP.

But there is no more magpies. A token of history at best. Its Wests Tigers.

 

[BZN]

its also got to make them release that as united supporters we can take a long term strategy with good voting numbers to destabilize and dethrone them from their positions that some seem to abuse

"to DESTABILISE and DETHRONE" is certainly the AIM OF THIS LATEST PETITION.

Can YOU name the people that hold the positions that some seem to abuse, with actual proof of what you are saying.
If you can't, I have to suggest that a lot of MALICIOUS RUMOURS may have been spread around to do as you claim, "destabilise and dethrone" TO STRIP THE MAGPIES OF ANY POWER THEY HAVE EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A 90% STAKE IN OUR CLUB.

 

[TigerJunior4]

"to DESTABILISE and DETHRONE" is certainly the AIM OF THIS LATEST PETITION.

Can YOU name the people that hold the positions that some seem to abuse, with actual proof of what you are saying.
If you can't, I have to suggest that a lot of MALICIOUS RUMOURS may have been spread around to do as you claim, "destabilise and dethrone" TO STRIP THE MAGPIES OF ANY POWER THEY HAVE EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A 90% STAKE IN OUR CLUB.

The leaked emails from Julie Romero was pretty definitive proof imo.

 

[twentyforty]

Your at pains to defend a largely irrelevant, unnecessary and divisive petition.

I'm sure casual readers with a new perspective would see straight through it.

When people are trying so hard to shut something down, you know you’re onto something.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

"to DESTABILISE and DETHRONE" is certainly the AIM OF THIS LATEST PETITION.

Can YOU name the people that hold the positions that some seem to abuse, with actual proof of what you are saying.
If you can't, I have to suggest that a lot of MALICIOUS RUMOURS may have been spread around to do as you claim, "destabilise and dethrone" TO STRIP THE MAGPIES OF ANY POWER THEY HAVE EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A 90% STAKE IN OUR CLUB.

90% stake and still can't get it together. Stake in what? Nepotism?