WT- A decade of disappointment '10-'19..

[happy_tiger]

Moved to this thread Glenn

No what I suggested for the club was 3 different options

1/ was to back a ticket you would on the board , might be a mixture of ex players , prominent businesspeople etc

2/ Just hand us over to WA and let them run the WT';s

3/ Sell us privately

All of these options couldn't be as bad as what is currently in place

 

[2005magic]

We talk about board and / or structure changes and CEO changes and also question Maguires methods but what is not questioned is the inability to change players either not working out or signing someone better and forcing out a lesser player.

Why is it WT playing roster is hamstrung by players hanging around unwanted and remaining contract bound when other clubs seem to willy nilly get rid of players and sign others at will. Something strange going on here. Look at Roosters, Rabbits, Sharks, Dogs, Parra, Panthers etc.

 

[Tiger5150]

Moved to this thread Glenn

Ok makes sense...

No what I suggested for the club was 3 different options

1/ was to back a ticket you would on the board , might be a mixture of ex players , prominent businesspeople etc

I pretty much spelled out in the other threads what I think is wrong with this model (the old Football Club model). No inherent board stability which is unattractive to sponsors and I assume the NRL.
2/ Just hand us over to WA and let them run the WT';s

How would this be different to what we have now in practice? Now we have majority WA board, Some independents and a couple of token Balmain guys based on WA's generosity. I assume the WA board members who I assume are responsible for what you are unhappy with now will still be in charge. WA still pull the strings (as they should). If WA owned it outright (dont think they would be able to under the Leagues Club Act) you would lose the independent board members which I understood to be a prerequesite of the NRL (may not matter now we have paid them back).

3/ Sell us privately

Scary as why would they have any long term allegiances to the Tigers. Again, in practice why would it be any different to WA owning us, and any different to now?


All of these options couldn't be as bad as what is currently in place

Dont see how they would be different to be honest.

 

[happy_tiger]

Moved to this thread Glenn


Ok makes sense...

No what I suggested for the club was 3 different options

1/ was to back a ticket you would on the board , might be a mixture of ex players , prominent businesspeople etc

I pretty much spelled out in the other threads what I think is wrong with this model (the old Football Club model). No inherent board stability which is unattractive to sponsors and I assume the NRL.
2/ Just hand us over to WA and let them run the WT';s

How would this be different to what we have now in practice? Now we have majority WA board, Some independents and a couple of token Balmain guys based on WA's generosity. I assume the WA board members who I assume are responsible for what you are unhappy with now will still be in charge. WA still pull the strings (as they should). If WA owned it outright (dont think they would be able to under the Leagues Club Act) you would lose the independent board members which I understood to be a prerequesite of the NRL (may not matter now we have paid them back).

3/ Sell us privately

Scary as why would they have any long term allegiances to the Tigers. Again, in practice why would it be any different to WA owning us, and any different to now?


All of these options couldn't be as bad as what is currently in place

Dont see how they would be different to be honest.

Yet we are 3rd chairperson in 8 months

And we had board members white anting Go

Looks like peaches and cream to any investors hey

And it keeps coming back to the same situation .....we get a board and their main interests are the person looking at them in the mirror ...not the WT's

 

[happy_tiger]

Moved to this thread Glenn


Ok makes sense...

No what I suggested for the club was 3 different options

1/ was to back a ticket you would on the board , might be a mixture of ex players , prominent businesspeople etc

I pretty much spelled out in the other threads what I think is wrong with this model (the old Football Club model). No inherent board stability which is unattractive to sponsors and I assume the NRL.
2/ Just hand us over to WA and let them run the WT';s

How would this be different to what we have now in practice? Now we have majority WA board, Some independents and a couple of token Balmain guys based on WA's generosity. I assume the WA board members who I assume are responsible for what you are unhappy with now will still be in charge. WA still pull the strings (as they should). If WA owned it outright (dont think they would be able to under the Leagues Club Act) you would lose the independent board members which I understood to be a prerequesite of the NRL (may not matter now we have paid them back).

3/ Sell us privately

Scary as why would they have any long term allegiances to the Tigers. Again, in practice why would it be any different to WA owning us, and any different to now?


All of these options couldn't be as bad as what is currently in place

Dont see how they would be different to be honest.

Yet we are at our 3rd chairperson in 8 months

And we had board members white anting Go

Looks like peaches and cream to any investors hey

And it keeps coming back to the same situation .....we get a board and their main interests are the person looking at them in the mirror ...not the WT's

 

[jadtiger]

Moved to this thread Glenn


Ok makes sense...

No what I suggested for the club was 3 different options

1/ was to back a ticket you would on the board , might be a mixture of ex players , prominent businesspeople etc

I pretty much spelled out in the other threads what I think is wrong with this model (the old Football Club model). No inherent board stability which is unattractive to sponsors and I assume the NRL.
2/ Just hand us over to WA and let them run the WT';s

How would this be different to what we have now in practice? Now we have majority WA board, Some independents and a couple of token Balmain guys based on WA's generosity. I assume the WA board members who I assume are responsible for what you are unhappy with now will still be in charge. WA still pull the strings (as they should). If WA owned it outright (dont think they would be able to under the Leagues Club Act) you would lose the independent board members which I understood to be a prerequesite of the NRL (may not matter now we have paid them back).

3/ Sell us privately

Scary as why would they have any long term allegiances to the Tigers. Again, in practice why would it be any different to WA owning us, and any different to now?


All of these options couldn't be as bad as what is currently in place

Dont see how they would be different to be honest.

Yet we are 3rd chairperson in 8 months

And we had board members white anting Go

Looks like peaches and cream to any investors hey

And it keeps coming back to the same situation .....we get a board and their main interests are the person looking at them in the mirror ...not the WT's

Even now it annoys me completely that we had board members backstabbing our chairperson who resigned on principle.Sadly i bet they are still on the board patting themselves on the back for protecting their own importance and place in the heirachy.None of the cowards have ever owned up to the fact that they betrayed the clubs interests when we needed solidarity more than ever

 

[jirskyr]

Take out the 30 wins when we were a top 4 team from 2010 and 2011

Take out 30 wins from any side in the past decade and many of them struggle.

Let's be honest there's Storm and Roosters, then the rest.

Broncos have a great win/loss record over 10 years and have won diddly squat.

 

[happy_tiger]

Take out the 30 wins when we were a top 4 team from 2010 and 2011

Take out 30 wins from any side in the past decade and many of them struggle.

Let's be honest there's Storm and Roosters, then the rest.

Broncos have a great win/loss record over 10 years and have won diddly squat.

We are at 42.4% winning percentage as the WT's we are pretty bad with or without

 

[BearComplex]

Well I certainly enjoyed those 107 wins! But the rest.........The less said, the better.

 

[fair dinkum]

Take out the 30 wins when we were a top 4 team from 2010 and 2011

Take out 30 wins from any side in the past decade and many of them struggle.

Let's be honest there's Storm and Roosters, then the rest.

Broncos have a great win/loss record over 10 years and have won diddly squat.

You almost understood, you just mixed up a 2 year period with a 10 year period. Keep trying, youll get there eventually.

 

[jirskyr]

Take out the 30 wins when we were a top 4 team from 2010 and 2011

Take out 30 wins from any side in the past decade and many of them struggle.

Let's be honest there's Storm and Roosters, then the rest.

Broncos have a great win/loss record over 10 years and have won diddly squat.

You almost understood, you just mixed up a 2 year period with a 10 year period. Keep trying, youll get there eventually.

???

 

[fair dinkum]

Take out the 30 wins when we were a top 4 team from 2010 and 2011

Take out 30 wins from any side in the past decade and many of them struggle.

Let's be honest there's Storm and Roosters, then the rest.

Broncos have a great win/loss record over 10 years and have won diddly squat.

You almost understood, you just mixed up a 2 year period with a 10 year period. Keep trying, youll get there eventually.

???

I was talking about a very specific time frame and you just went and splattered the entire 10 year period over it by saying to take out 30 games would effect other teams stats. My point to yours was comparing apples to battleships.

 

[jirskyr]

Take out the 30 wins when we were a top 4 team from 2010 and 2011

Take out 30 wins from any side in the past decade and many of them struggle.

Let's be honest there's Storm and Roosters, then the rest.

Broncos have a great win/loss record over 10 years and have won diddly squat.

You almost understood, you just mixed up a 2 year period with a 10 year period. Keep trying, youll get there eventually.

???

I was talking about a very specific time frame and you just went and splattered the entire 10 year period over it by saying to take out 30 games would effect other teams stats. My point to yours was comparing apples to battleships.

A very specific 8 years, cool. Very different from 10 years as OP.

 

[fair dinkum]

Take out the 30 wins when we were a top 4 team from 2010 and 2011

Take out 30 wins from any side in the past decade and many of them struggle.

Let's be honest there's Storm and Roosters, then the rest.

Broncos have a great win/loss record over 10 years and have won diddly squat.

You almost understood, you just mixed up a 2 year period with a 10 year period. Keep trying, youll get there eventually.

???

I was talking about a very specific time frame and you just went and splattered the entire 10 year period over it by saying to take out 30 games would effect other teams stats. My point to yours was comparing apples to battleships.

A very specific 8 years, cool. Very different from 10 years as OP.

A very specific **2** years. Almost there. You can do it.

 

[jirskyr]

Take out the 30 wins when we were a top 4 team from 2010 and 2011

Take out 30 wins from any side in the past decade and many of them struggle.

Let's be honest there's Storm and Roosters, then the rest.

Broncos have a great win/loss record over 10 years and have won diddly squat.

You almost understood, you just mixed up a 2 year period with a 10 year period. Keep trying, youll get there eventually.

???

I was talking about a very specific time frame and you just went and splattered the entire 10 year period over it by saying to take out 30 games would effect other teams stats. My point to yours was comparing apples to battleships.

A very specific 8 years, cool. Very different from 10 years as OP.

A very specific **2** years. Almost there. You can do it.

Thanks pal

 

[fair dinkum]

Take out the 30 wins when we were a top 4 team from 2010 and 2011

Take out 30 wins from any side in the past decade and many of them struggle.

Let's be honest there's Storm and Roosters, then the rest.

Broncos have a great win/loss record over 10 years and have won diddly squat.

You almost understood, you just mixed up a 2 year period with a 10 year period. Keep trying, youll get there eventually.

???

I was talking about a very specific time frame and you just went and splattered the entire 10 year period over it by saying to take out 30 games would effect other teams stats. My point to yours was comparing apples to battleships.

A very specific 8 years, cool. Very different from 10 years as OP.

A very specific **2** years. Almost there. You can do it.

Thanks pal

No worries, im always here to baby step people though a simple point.