Wests Tigers need quick $1m to survive
- Thread starter innsaneink
- Start date
diedpretty
Well-known member
@smeghead said:
Thats correct and now that the Wests Group is voting as a block ala Balmain and have the chairman at this stage so everyone is whingeing that its unfair.
Black_n_White
New member
Balmain is running out of tangible assets… for arguments sake lets say they have none.
If WT were somehow able to garner interest, and form a truly credible and independent board, they would be made up of exceptional members of the business community, proven entrepreneurs, money men, those able to cut the wheat from the chaff....
Ashfield is wheat... secured Magpies stake as well as locked int their contribution as a sponsor, effectively doubled the Magpies stake. Legitimate financial minds will only allow for so much downturn before forcing a correction. WT constitution dictates that Ashfield gets first shot at any stake shares sold seeing as they are they only shareholder in play...
Put simply, Balmains only assets are seats on a board, going independant model means they lose their only tangible asset. I dont want them to disappear.... I lived it once, my mothers brother, my Godfather, is Steven Sim of North Sydney Bears.... need I say more. No-one in their right mind would back Balmain. Independent is bad for Balmain. Look at Illawarra Steelers, North Sydney Bears... The NRL protects Brands, not founders... history provides evidence...
If WT were somehow able to garner interest, and form a truly credible and independent board, they would be made up of exceptional members of the business community, proven entrepreneurs, money men, those able to cut the wheat from the chaff....
Ashfield is wheat... secured Magpies stake as well as locked int their contribution as a sponsor, effectively doubled the Magpies stake. Legitimate financial minds will only allow for so much downturn before forcing a correction. WT constitution dictates that Ashfield gets first shot at any stake shares sold seeing as they are they only shareholder in play...
Put simply, Balmains only assets are seats on a board, going independant model means they lose their only tangible asset. I dont want them to disappear.... I lived it once, my mothers brother, my Godfather, is Steven Sim of North Sydney Bears.... need I say more. No-one in their right mind would back Balmain. Independent is bad for Balmain. Look at Illawarra Steelers, North Sydney Bears... The NRL protects Brands, not founders... history provides evidence...
diedpretty
Well-known member
@LaT said:
Who is whinging?
And if Wests group vote as a block why do they feel the need to secure more seats?[/quo
Who is whingeing? You obviously haven't read all posts on this subject. Wests group are only suggesting that while they carry Balmains debt they should hold the balance of power - perfectly reasonable request - i'm guessing where we are at the moment is that Balmain have refused the suggestion and Wests Group have decided not to cover the debt any longer.
Don't take it so personal - its not blackmail - its a business entity wanting the major say in how their investment is being used.
Black_n_White
New member
@LaT said:
Nor do I…. depends on the cost though. As a Magpie, Lidcombe Oval Magpie, I understand pain that Im not sure you understand. I want a model that will work for all. We are step-brothers now, dont have to like each other... But putting the other at the mercy of independent number-crunchers wont end well, the stakes will only rise to pay for the priviledge to be held accountable, and only one party is set to fail. Im more a " you are in the trenches with me, fight with me" sort of character, but savy enough to see we have to choose our battles.
@diedpretty said:
No, you said Wests are voting as a bloc and now everyone is whinging…..that is false. Wests vote as a block, Balmain votes as a block, what this thread is about are the demands of Wests to secure more seats as they carry the financial burden for Wests Tigers. Now I am not completely against this in principle, as long as the longer term view is an independent board for the club.
And despite the cries, it needs to be asked if Balmain ever made this demand to Wests when the financial burden for WT was being carried by the other side.
Black_n_White
New member
@LaT said:
lol… imagine the Balmain faithful never watching another game at their spiritual home... forced to move west... my reality will become yours soon enough... Pain... Lidcombe Magpie fan.
I loved reading the thread earlier in the day. I just jumped back on and have seen about 4 people drag this discussion down to Balmain vs Wests.
For those of you arguing about the merits of each position, please stop. Please step back. Please look at what is best for the club. The best clubs, are the best run.
This article can be reviewed, argued from so many angles. My summary of the consensus of the contributions so far is:
1\. Fans hold a negative view of Directors even refering to Balmain or Wests instead of just Wests Tigers
2\. Fan are fed up with Directors playing out their sides positions in the public eye through media quotes and leaks
3\. Fans only want Wests Tigers
4\. NRL is the biggest stakeholder though there remains a need for additional funds
5\. Many many people on this thread want Independents (not unanimous though)
So the conversation from here is essentially:
1\. What are the merits of an independent board vs. current board (in any possible range of its distribution)
2\. How can the club raise more money (to move beyond reliance on Gambling revenue)
I am in favour of the answer to point 2 being: Sell Football club memberships. $100 each. 3 year commitment. No seats. Aim for 10K members building to 20K. Sell seating packages separate to membership. That $1m to $2m + what the NRL tips in due to the independent structure. Advertising to the members would add another 300K or so. For the record AFL clubs do this very well. Are structure means we can only sell 'seating memberships'.
I would expect this would increase the chance that Ashfield increases their contribution as well. They could easily rename to be Wests Tigers Leagues club - Ashfield
For those of you arguing about the merits of each position, please stop. Please step back. Please look at what is best for the club. The best clubs, are the best run.
This article can be reviewed, argued from so many angles. My summary of the consensus of the contributions so far is:
1\. Fans hold a negative view of Directors even refering to Balmain or Wests instead of just Wests Tigers
2\. Fan are fed up with Directors playing out their sides positions in the public eye through media quotes and leaks
3\. Fans only want Wests Tigers
4\. NRL is the biggest stakeholder though there remains a need for additional funds
5\. Many many people on this thread want Independents (not unanimous though)
So the conversation from here is essentially:
1\. What are the merits of an independent board vs. current board (in any possible range of its distribution)
2\. How can the club raise more money (to move beyond reliance on Gambling revenue)
I am in favour of the answer to point 2 being: Sell Football club memberships. $100 each. 3 year commitment. No seats. Aim for 10K members building to 20K. Sell seating packages separate to membership. That $1m to $2m + what the NRL tips in due to the independent structure. Advertising to the members would add another 300K or so. For the record AFL clubs do this very well. Are structure means we can only sell 'seating memberships'.
I would expect this would increase the chance that Ashfield increases their contribution as well. They could easily rename to be Wests Tigers Leagues club - Ashfield
Gosh I'm a Lidcombe Oval Magpie as well ….. Was there for the last game against Easts in '86 and attended the BBQ breakfast !
Always argue that Campbelltown is our spiritual home ... Never felt that way to me !
If Balmain didn't agree to merger, we would have been swallowed up by Canterbury. That would have ended in disaster. Balmain probably the same story with Parra who always wanted the Tiger logo.
We have been together for 14 years now .... There's no turning back ... It's too late now.
And besides, for all its faults and heartbreaks, the Wests Tigers are a great team to be a part of.
It's my hope the current board feel the same way. Hopefully they are not opportunists like Manly in the Northern Eagles JV and pull the rug from the Bears. I'd like to think we are above that.
Always argue that Campbelltown is our spiritual home ... Never felt that way to me !
If Balmain didn't agree to merger, we would have been swallowed up by Canterbury. That would have ended in disaster. Balmain probably the same story with Parra who always wanted the Tiger logo.
We have been together for 14 years now .... There's no turning back ... It's too late now.
And besides, for all its faults and heartbreaks, the Wests Tigers are a great team to be a part of.
It's my hope the current board feel the same way. Hopefully they are not opportunists like Manly in the Northern Eagles JV and pull the rug from the Bears. I'd like to think we are above that.
weststigers4life
Active member
Claws are out: infighting has joint venture on the brink
The Wests Tigers on Tuesday night descended into a state of civil war with the Balmain side of the joint venture accusing the Magpies of "betrayal of trust and an indication of disrespect".
Balmain chairman Leslie Glen issued a blistering response to revelations in Fairfax Media that powerful stakeholder Wests Ashfield wants control of the Wests Tigers board in exchange for saving the club from insolvency.
As reported, the joint venture requires an urgent cash injection of $1 million to save it from financial collapse – a fact the NRL mysteriously wanted to ignore.
Balmain directors met on Tuesday night to discuss how to respond to Wests' proposal, under which the Magpies would gain an additional director on the board and the chairmanship for three years. But the appearance of the story in Fairfax Media – as well as comments from Wests chairman Mike Bailey – has outraged Balmain, and the joint venture's future is shrouded in uncertainty.
"Wests made an offer to Balmain Tigers recently, as outlined in the Herald article, which was confidential and which was to be considered by the Balmain Tigers board this evening [Tuesday]," Glen said. "The leaking of that offer and the comments by Mike Bailey is seen by me, at least, as a betrayal of trust and an indication of disrespect from our partners at Wests Ashfield.
"Balmain Tigers has a history of loyalty and honour in its dealings with all those with whom it has ties. We supported the formation of the ARL Commission and respect its authority and its charter to develop rugby league and foster the links between sport and the community. We recognise that corporate governance is a fact of life in our present-day economy."
While Wests wants control of the Tigers, Balmain wants to see more independent directors installed – something outlined in a report commissioned by the NRL earlier this year. It is understood the ARL Commission would only consider handing over additional funding to save the Tigers if they agreed to change their structure to a more independent model to stop the incessant infighting.
"We are pleased to co-operate with [NRL chief executive] Dave Smith, who has provided financial assistance to the NRL clubs that have made the game so popular," Glen said. "We need further financial support in order to continue this work now, it is true, but we believe we must strive to become independent as quickly as possible in order to become resilient and worthy of our heritage. Staying moribund, as Wests appear to desire, is not part of our ambition. Independent members of our Wests Tigers board who can offer us innovation and ideas are welcomed, not shunned. Balmain doesn't want to keep the same old people to continue warming seats on the Wests Tigers' Board (including myself). The Balmain Tigers' board welcomes change which will lead to a stronger Wests Tigers in the future."
Smith refused to elaborate on whether the NRL would financially assist the Tigers.
"I've met with the Wests Tigers board . . . but I am not going to go into the details of those discussions," he said. "We are working with all our clubs to make sure they are meeting those aims and that there is a five-year planning horizon. The financial accountability that is being built across the game will play an important role in that going forward."
The Wests Tigers board is due to meet on Thursday week, when the coaching structure for next season will be determined.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/claws-are-out-infighting-has-joint-venture-on-the-brink-20130820-2s9bf.html
The Wests Tigers on Tuesday night descended into a state of civil war with the Balmain side of the joint venture accusing the Magpies of "betrayal of trust and an indication of disrespect".
Balmain chairman Leslie Glen issued a blistering response to revelations in Fairfax Media that powerful stakeholder Wests Ashfield wants control of the Wests Tigers board in exchange for saving the club from insolvency.
As reported, the joint venture requires an urgent cash injection of $1 million to save it from financial collapse – a fact the NRL mysteriously wanted to ignore.
Balmain directors met on Tuesday night to discuss how to respond to Wests' proposal, under which the Magpies would gain an additional director on the board and the chairmanship for three years. But the appearance of the story in Fairfax Media – as well as comments from Wests chairman Mike Bailey – has outraged Balmain, and the joint venture's future is shrouded in uncertainty.
"Wests made an offer to Balmain Tigers recently, as outlined in the Herald article, which was confidential and which was to be considered by the Balmain Tigers board this evening [Tuesday]," Glen said. "The leaking of that offer and the comments by Mike Bailey is seen by me, at least, as a betrayal of trust and an indication of disrespect from our partners at Wests Ashfield.
"Balmain Tigers has a history of loyalty and honour in its dealings with all those with whom it has ties. We supported the formation of the ARL Commission and respect its authority and its charter to develop rugby league and foster the links between sport and the community. We recognise that corporate governance is a fact of life in our present-day economy."
While Wests wants control of the Tigers, Balmain wants to see more independent directors installed – something outlined in a report commissioned by the NRL earlier this year. It is understood the ARL Commission would only consider handing over additional funding to save the Tigers if they agreed to change their structure to a more independent model to stop the incessant infighting.
"We are pleased to co-operate with [NRL chief executive] Dave Smith, who has provided financial assistance to the NRL clubs that have made the game so popular," Glen said. "We need further financial support in order to continue this work now, it is true, but we believe we must strive to become independent as quickly as possible in order to become resilient and worthy of our heritage. Staying moribund, as Wests appear to desire, is not part of our ambition. Independent members of our Wests Tigers board who can offer us innovation and ideas are welcomed, not shunned. Balmain doesn't want to keep the same old people to continue warming seats on the Wests Tigers' Board (including myself). The Balmain Tigers' board welcomes change which will lead to a stronger Wests Tigers in the future."
Smith refused to elaborate on whether the NRL would financially assist the Tigers.
"I've met with the Wests Tigers board . . . but I am not going to go into the details of those discussions," he said. "We are working with all our clubs to make sure they are meeting those aims and that there is a five-year planning horizon. The financial accountability that is being built across the game will play an important role in that going forward."
The Wests Tigers board is due to meet on Thursday week, when the coaching structure for next season will be determined.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/claws-are-out-infighting-has-joint-venture-on-the-brink-20130820-2s9bf.html
Regardless of the subject being 'leaked' its an issue that needs to be addressed. Until the NRL can pour in the cash (one off or long term) then Ashfield capital is essential for WT.
Another seat on the board is a reasonable offer.
As i said earlier today, it does NOT mean that WT will eventually revert back to Wests Magpies (northern eagles scenario)
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Another seat on the board is a reasonable offer.
As i said earlier today, it does NOT mean that WT will eventually revert back to Wests Magpies (northern eagles scenario)
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Stating the obvious, all clubs need money to operate, including Wests Tigers of course. I haven't researched where clubs get their money from specificially but revenue seems to come from NRL grants, sponsors, some clubs are owned so they have the benefit of money from wealthy business people, there may be investments eg property, game day profits and deals with stadiums, merchandise sales and I'm guessing some clubs sell actual memberships. These revenue streams come to mind although I'm sure people will be able to add others. IN Wests Tigers case I'm not sure how there could be an independent board unless an orgaisation was willing to kick in the money that the current stakeholders in Wests and Balmain contribute and this new finance backer also backed an independent Board. The question is, who would want to buy into Wests Tigers in the same way as say Rusty and co did at Souths. Don't see or hear of anyone busting down the doors to do so. The current arrangement seems to be all there is to work with and Wests have the money to assist with the current debt so their request for more say seems reasonable as long as they do what's best for Wests Tigers as a whole. I say that as a Wests member who isn't interested in seeing the Balmain side of the venture disadvantaged. I like McGarry's idea of Wests Tigers selling actual memberships to raise money as well although it seems that the current structure doesn't allow for this so maybe that could be looked at as well in any restructure should the NRL or WTs Board negotiate any changes.
@Mccarry said:
Mate, there is an answer to this, and particularly the bolded and one that most won't like.
I say this as someone who loves Leichhardt as much as anyone, the thought of the club never playing a game there deeply upsets me, something which funnily enough as has been pointed out in the thread by Black & White, some of the old(er) Wests people can appreciate but IF NRL clubs are to push memberships higher, and bearing in mind it's not a spectator sport in the fashion that Aussie Rules is … Leichhardt and to a lesser extent Campbo are a major issue.
Example - Essendon.
Moved from Windy Hill, their traditional home to the MCG in 1992\. Within three years, their membership had jumped from around 11k to 19k, admittedly off the back of a premiership as well, but any suggestion the move to the MCG didn't play the major role would be silly.
If we are to move forward, attract more people to the games and increase our membership, we at the least need to go back to a 3-3-6 model, or even maybe 3-4-5 (Leich, Camp, Homebush or SFS). As much as I love the place more than any other, we won't grow our membership playing a third of our games at the old girl. Problem is, if you go the 'fair' 3-3-6, that removes games from the Sth West, which is frankly counter productive to what the club wants to achieve.
If membership/attendances are seen as our biggest growth potential, than many of us have to come to grips with Leichhardt's (lack of) viability.
S
system
Guest
@TigerOfBankstown said:
Hahahahaha! Damn this is so funny, because…...it's so true!
You'd never go into the trenches with any of the Magpies board members.That's for sure.
Short Memories......
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
innsaneink
Well-known member
Roar feed makes threads impossible to read
