The NRL must INTERVENE

[Jedi_Tiger]

Melbourne are fair-weather fans. That support base will drop 50-70% the moment they fall back to the heap post bellamy era. The owners sold at their peak.

Imagine a final series with tigers, eels, bulldogs and dragons. The city would be pumping.

finals series of
souths
Parramatta
Dogs
Dragons
Tigers

would be so good for NRL

 

[Leck]

I'm surprised by the Panthers position on that list.

I'm not. The Panthers understand that a players body is more than a battering ram.

This pod is great for player info, especially when injuries occur.

 

[FinestTigers]

Mate, I totally agree but what would it take for the NRL to stick their nose into how a club runs its own operations?

It would be when HBG has the inability to pay the football club the required money. However, they aren't doing that, they seem to be fulfilling their obligations, so the NRL can't and won't do anything.

And if that happens, the NRL might look at it and say 'well too bad we'll take your licence somewhere else'. Thats why I don't like the idea of stopping memberships and so on, its hurts the football club too much, not HBG.

(Maybe if it was because of some governance neglect or similar, I don't know but you know what I mean, then maybe, but that's not happening)

I hope that the new CEO can foster better relationships between HBG and the football club, I think this is our best hope. So we need to be on his back about this but I'm sure he is very well aware.

Under the ARLC's legal considerations and implications, believe it or not, i think that the ARLC is very much capable of intervening and force a governance change. The real question is, why haven't they yet?

Under the constitution of the ARLC and the club licence agreement, the commission holds extensive discretionary powers to activate when extraordinary triggers occur.
And there are a few triggers that could activate this clause for an intervention, the most effective trigger/s that i can see is the following.

The best interests of the game clause.
Trigger 1. Severe commercial and broadcast deprivation
Under their constitution and discretionary powers this clause can be triggered when poor governance leads to endless bottom 4 finishes which then causes depressed tv ratings and reduced match day attendances, the commission can argue that broadcast partners pay billions to air competitive matches and that this governance model is directly weakening the NRL"s broadcast product

Trigger 2. Prolonged failure on the NRL ladder.
The WT NRL ladder positions for the past decade is one of the most continuous declines in NRL history, the commission can trigger this clause for a decade long bottom tier club, arguing that board friction as the main cause for the decline and improper football investment.

The NRL would not immediately strip a licence but it could use the best interest's clause through a multi step process and force HBG to abandon their primitive debenture seats.

We probably could also add more triggers.
3.failure in junior talent retention.
4. Brand and operational chaos.

One serious trigger should be sufficient, and
If the ARLC asked me, do you have a trigger for us to activate the clause? I would be saying how many do you want?

 

[Chunk]

You keep saying this but it’s not going to happen. HBG have had 15 years to show some ounce of care and support and all they’ve done is run the club into the ground and made us the worst sporting franchise in professional sport.

Our CEO isn’t going change anything. The guy jumped on here and honestly said Lidcombe Oval is an important venue.

When he goes to those lengths to appease and placate the HBG crowd that are stuck in the 70’s, do you honestly think he’ll enact real, positive, sustainable change?

Our CEO has more chance of changing things than..............what do you propose?

You say 'those lengths to appease HBG', maybe he was simply indicating that Wests Magpies play a role in the development of our pathways, it was simply a comment on the forum, not gospel.

And also, 'those lengths to appease HBG' (your words) could be seen as a form of compromise, thats what these guys are good at, making progress through compromise.

He might not be good at it, but I'm simply hoping.

 

[Chunk]

Under the ARLC's legal considerations and implications, believe it or not, i think that the ARLC is very much capable of intervening and force a governance change. The real question is, why haven't they yet?

Under the constitution of the ARLC and the club licence agreement, the commission holds extensive discretionary powers to activate when extraordinary triggers occur.
And there are a few triggers that could activate this clause for an intervention, the most effective trigger/s that i can see is the following.

The best interests of the game clause.
Trigger 1. Severe commercial and broadcast deprivation
Under their constitution and discretionary powers this clause can be triggered when poor governance leads to endless bottom 4 finishes which then causes depressed tv ratings and reduced match day attendances, the commission can argue that broadcast partners pay billions to air competitive matches and that this governance model is directly weakening the NRL"s broadcast product

Trigger 2. Prolonged failure on the NRL ladder.
The WT NRL ladder positions for the past decade is one of the most continuous declines in NRL history, the commission can trigger this clause for a decade long bottom tier club, arguing that board friction as the main cause for the decline and improper football investment.

The NRL would not immediately strip a licence but it could use the best interest's clause through a multi step process and force HBG to abandon their primitive debenture seats.

We probably could also add more triggers.
3.failure in junior talent retention.
4. Brand and operational chaos.

One serious trigger should be sufficient, and
If the ARLC asked me, do you have a trigger for us to activate the clause? I would be saying how many do you want?

Yeah fair enough, I suppose it's depends on what the NRL consider extraordinary triggers and it would have to proven if was clearly the fault of HBG.

Did you make them up or they specific triggers? For example, 'Endless bottom 4 finishes' Is this fairdinkum?

I think the NRL's main concern is can HBG pay their bills and fulfill other parts of the agreement.

 

[Pringle Gold]

Our CEO has more chance of changing things than..............what do you propose?

You say 'those lengths to appease HBG', maybe he was simply indicating that Wests Magpies play a role in the development of our pathways, it was simply a comment on the forum, not gospel.

And also, 'those lengths to appease HBG' (your words) could be seen as a form of compromise, thats what these guys are good at, making progress through compromise.

Honestly the only thing that would force a re-think would be to boycott merchandise, game tickets, membership and any form of revenue stream for the club. That could force them to come to the table or NRL intervention. However it would also require the fans to come together, develop a list of demands and probably think about what they’re willing to compromise if either HBG or NRL came to the table to negotiate.

You’ve already dismissed this idea because it hurts the club. That’s despite the club dishing up disgusting and embarrassing results year on end and scandal after scandal.

The other option would be to try and infiltrate the debenture system but that seems extremely unlikely to succeed given the stranglehold they have over approving new debenture members.

You keep saying the CEO can influence or negotiate. But what are you thinking he can influence? Better governance structures or funding or both?

I’ll also say I have 15 years of evidence backing my statements re HBG. When have they ever listened to reason or acted in the best interests of the club?

I don’t know why you’re trying to argue the CEO’s statement on Lidcombe. Anyone who says Lidcombe is vital to our pathways has rocks in their head.

 

[Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan]

They dont care about members.

They didnt care when the club falsely reported membership numbers.

Daniel Patton came out in a video telling everyone how much he cared about the football clubs members when they sacked the board, only to never update us again.

All lip service.

Only things they care about are themselves and making sure the Magpie has proper representation on the jersey.