Wests Tigers Restructure [MERGED]

[Abraham]

See and thats the porblem, we are not members we are just Season Ticket holders (Unless you are voting Balmain/Western Suburbs Members)

Would be great if in the new constitution that memberships are granted voting rights so we are not just season ticket holders for the club.

That would take the power away from Balmain and the Magpies and give it to the paying members, so that won't happen anytime soon.

However I can't see why the constitution has to have all this smoke and mirrors about it. Half the arguments on here are about the mysterious JV agreement that no one sees but everyone talks about.

Just make the bloody thing transparent so we all know what's going on. Seems simple enough!

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[wtfl1981]

As i stated before, nothing has really changed except for a cash loan from NRL (which helps), less say by Balmain for a period of time and 3 independent board numbers to influence control and more than likely push a move for WT to ANZ and eventually wiggle their way into total franchise ownership.

Less Independent NRL clubs (those with their own powerful controlling boards) means less hassle for NRL.

Until WT becomes a stand alone football club (prob owned by ARLC) and not a private company, it will be financially and constitutionally tied to Balmain, Magpies and Ashfield Leagues club for years to come.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[LaT]

Yep, its a conspiracy to own clubs. Well spotted.

 

[Knuckles]

As i stated before, nothing has really changed except for a cash loan from NRL (which helps), less say by Balmain for a period of time and 3 independent board numbers to influence control and more than likely push a move for WT to ANZ and eventually wiggle their way into total franchise ownership.

Less Independent NRL clubs (those with their own powerful controlling boards) means less hassle for NRL.

Until WT becomes a stand alone football club (prob owned by ARLC) and not a private company, it will be financially and constitutionally tied to Balmain, Magpies and Ashfield Leagues club for years to come.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_[/quote

That's one possible scenario '81 …. But where do you think the club will be in say ten to fifteen years ? I think the only two things that won't change are the emblem and the colours ... I think everything else is up for debate. Do you think Ashfield will stay and financially support a club that plays 40 miles from where its based ? Is it conceivable if Balmain do indeed fold and control of the board passes to the Independants that Ashfield will stay ? If Ashfield was to sell their stake do you think the name "Wests" would remain. Could you see the MacArthur region claiming the club as its own via a local investor and calling it the MacArthur/Camden Tigers ?
I believe the long term ramifications of the events of the last few weeks have the potential to change the face of our club. We could almost start a Wests Tigers hypotheticals thread !!!

 

[wtfl1981]

Ashfield is a wealthy club that will support WT. They support the WT model and WT take care of their football obligations. Total or majority ownership of WT by Ashfield is possible.

Wests Tigers name and logo are here to stay for ever. The brand would not be rewound.

Note: Ashfield ownership does not mean reverting to Magpies.

As for South West, its essential NRL grab a firm hold on the area.

6 x ANZ plus 6 x CSS is a likely option when LO eventually shuts its doors. I think the ANZ stadium deals will unravel over time and clubs and NRL may have to back to old skool methods of sustaining $$$ in a new world.

10,15 or 30 years time - a lot can change… Will there be a day when TV advertising revenue drops off so much that they cant pay for lucrative TV deals to fund the game... Not off the cards.

No conspiracy LaT, its been reported by media outlets about overtaking club boards. Not just WT but other clubs..

Also means less power men taking a slice of club incomes and overall game revenue.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[Knuckles]

Be interesting to see if the Stadium funding holds up too. If it doesn't I'm not sure what will happen with Mayers ten year deal with ANZ.

If Ashfield did decide to sell out, I'm sure there stake in the Wests Tigers would be worth a lot …. Say for instance if a consortium of local business people decided to buy ownership/control, they would have to pay a lot in goodwill to take ownership. You're right though ... A lot can change in that time .... Which is why I questioned Mayer locking us in to a ten year deal with ANZ last year.

 

[Snake]

It's pretty much about population as with most things in this city and country. There is method in the move to larger stadiums the days of suburban grounds is over and to one extent it's about money and clubs being able to pay the ever increasing financial burden of hoisting games. If we all want the same amount of teams playing out of Sydney then some sacrifices will be required,this idea of reciprocal games is a massive development and the need for lager stadiums will be needed over time to hopefully accommodate demand and our ever increasing hunger for technology will only be able to be supplied by these venues wifi etc,it would also be cheaper for TV to set up at a more perminant venue and they are paying mega bucks to fund the NRL.
Personally I think this is just a progression in major sporting events in large city's and think that Mr Mayer has been very smart and thought provoked to lock the club in for a long term deal realising that this is where the NRL wanted to go and other vultures would be circling ..it,s better to get a full feed rather than crumbs! If I can take my family to a modern stadium with good amenities ,good transport at a good price with reciprocal agreements in a central location so to watch my club play I don't have to much to complain about .
We are also supporters that actually go to games I would like to know the percentage of the fans complaining about ground allocation that actually go to the games on a regular basis .

 

[cqtiger]

It's pretty much about population as with most things in this city and country. There is method in the move to larger stadiums the days of suburban grounds is over and to one extent it's about money and clubs being able to pay the ever increasing financial burden of hoisting games. If we all want the same amount of teams playing out of Sydney then some sacrifices will be required,this idea of reciprocal games is a massive development and the need for lager stadiums will be needed over time to hopefully accommodate demand and our ever increasing hunger for technology will only be able to be supplied by these venues wifi etc,it would also be cheaper for TV to set up at a more perminant venue and they are paying mega bucks to fund the NRL.
Personally I think this is just a progression in major sporting events in large city's and think that Mr Mayer has been very smart and thought provoked to lock the club in for a long term deal realising that this is where the NRL wanted to go and other vultures would be circling ..it,s better to get a full feed rather than crumbs! If I can take my family to a modern stadium with good amenities ,good transport at a good price with reciprocal agreements in a central location so to watch my club play I don't have to much to complain about .
We are also supporters that actually go to games I would like to know the percentage of the fans complaining about ground allocation that actually go to the games on a regular basis .

It's been 30-40 years since I used to go to Leichardt Oval regularly. I can't anymore due to my location. My view on ground allocation is a simple one; you trade the old home ground advantage for a few dollars.

Don't for a minute underestimate the value of the "fortress" mentality. How many times of late have I wondered that the result could have been different if it was played at LO or CSS?

Alas, it's only an inner Sydney issue. Penrith, Parra and all the other one town teams don't have this problem.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[wtfl1981]

Cqtiger, just curious that mention parra and penrith as 'one town' or away from inner sydney, how does that / can that work for WT who have the same geographical presence in Campbelltown (albeit part time)?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[cqtiger]

Cqtiger, just curious that mention parra and penrith as 'one town' or away from inner sydney, how does that / can that work for WT who have the same geographical presence in Campbelltown (albeit part time)?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

'81, my opinion is that it can't really work as we, the Wests Tigers, are a JV between Balmain and Western Suburbs (Ashfield = money). Hence I associate us with inner west.

I have posted previously though that Campbelltown would be ideal for the government/NRL to fund a stadium upgrade and MAKE Campbelltown our home base. That though would not please a lot of fans, sponsors or officials.

This will create a lot of debate, lol. Especially coming from an old Balmain dinosaur like me haha. Being called a dinosaur is just a label, I like to believe that I am, in fact, a progressive.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[Magpie_Magic]

I believe there is zero chance Wests Ashfield will sell their stake.
Its just important Balmain contribute so we can out vote the independents.

If Balmain sadly fold more than likely a nee constitution will be drawn.

 

[T-D-C]

Why do we need to our vote the independents wen they are the ones with the interests of Wests Tigers, with out the Wests/Balmian bias that worked so well for us in the past?

The independents aim and their job is to make WT successful, unfortunately I don't see that same interest from some of the other board members who have their own interests at heart.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[wtfl1981]

Why do we need to our vote the independents wen they are the ones with the interests of Wests Tigers, with out the Wests/Balmian bias that worked so well for us in the past?

The independents aim and their job is to make WT successful, unfortunately I don't see that same interest from some of the other board members who have their own interests at heart.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

The independents are board men that i would not be afraid of.. WT need them to move the club forward for strategy and financial stability.. WT wont be disappearing…

If you are a original Balmain derived fan and you are worried about not having a vote on the board, i would not worry too much.. Tigers identity is not going anywhere..

The only hard reality will be the inevitable departure from LO.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[Magpie_Magic]

The Independents have the arlc interests at heart.

 

[Basil_Tiger]

The Independents have the arlc interests at heart.

which equals =greater Western Sydney,which equals=Campbelltown.

My 2c but they(ARLC) are clever enough to make it happen gradually over a period of years.

 

[T-D-C]

The Independents have the arlc interests at heart.

And how do you know this when they have not been appointed yet? We know the track record of Wests vs Balmain in the board room.

It's in the best interest of the ARLC for the Wests Tigers to be successful in Western Sydney.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[Basil_Tiger]

I think they'll do what they think is in the best interests of the merger but at the end of the day the people/organisation that appoint them calls the tune.

 

[Magpie_Magic]

Lets not forget how we came about in having independents.
It's not because we need to stop trivial Wests Balmain bickering in the board room.
Its not because the ARLC really cares more for the WT than the previous set up.

It's simply because Balmain currently has solvency issues. If they didn't have these our financial position would be different.

At the end of the day it doesn't feel as if we own and control the club with the independents there.

 

[cochise]

Lets not forget how we came about in having independents.
It's not because we need to stop trivial Wests Balmain bickering in the board room.
Its not because the ARLC really cares more for the WT than the previous set up.

It's simply because Balmain currently has solvency issues. If they didn't have these our financial position would be different.

At the end of the day it doesn't feel as if we own and control the club with the independents there.

Who is this we you are talking about?

I didn't agree with the majority of decisions the previous board was making about this club and I most certainly did not have any ownership. This is a great move in my opinion.

 

[Knuckles]

The Independents have the arlc interests at heart.

And how do you know this when they have not been appointed yet? We know the track record of Wests vs Balmain in the board room.

It's in the best interest of the ARLC for the Wests Tigers to be successful in Western Sydney.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

It's hard to argue with that …. The Independants will act with the Leagues best interests at heart. But Western Sydney is a "football code" hot potato and the league will not want soccer and to a lesser extent AFL to pull the rug from under its feet. The stars seem to line up for the Independants to act in the leagues and our best interests and take us forward.