Just to clarify my point, Im not wrapped in the current board but IMO fan involvement is not the answer.
But to further make the point, if fans could, which board member would you sack or replace? We have zero knowledge of what they do. Personally I'd sack Dennis Burgess, purely based on the way he presents, but he might be fantastic on the board.
Dennis is a big fan of the club. That’s the type of person you’d end up with on a fan voted position. Someone with a recognised name who can attract votes. Most fans and members are not engaged with the going ons behind the scenes.
Just to clarify my point, Im not wrapped in the current board but IMO fan involvement is not the answer.
But to further make the point, if fans could, which board member would you sack or replace? We have zero knowledge of what they do. Personally I'd sack Dennis Burgess, purely based on the way he presents, but he might be fantastic on the board.
Dennis is a big fan of the club. That’s the type of person you’d end up with on a fan voted position. Someone with a recognised name who can attract votes. Most fans and members are not engaged with the going ons behind the scenes.
I'd suggest you would end up with someone with a strong social media basis. Is that the direction for the club?
Just to clarify my point, Im not wrapped in the current board but IMO fan involvement is not the answer.
But to further make the point, if fans could, which board member would you sack or replace? We have zero knowledge of what they do. Personally I'd sack Dennis Burgess, purely based on the way he presents, but he might be fantastic on the board.
Dennis is a big fan of the club. That’s the type of person you’d end up with on a fan voted position. Someone with a recognised name who can attract votes. Most fans and members are not engaged with the going ons behind the scenes.
I'd suggest you would end up with someone with a strong social media basis. Is that the direction for the club?
short answer no. The guys from here who do the podcast are sensible but others who have a big presence are not
Fans are stake holders, not just customers… If it wasn’t for the fans there would be no club.The fans should have representation at the board level, voted by the fans.
Why?
So that at the Board Level there is some accountability directly to all stakeholders,
How would a fan occupying one seat on the board contribute any accountibility in practical terms? Not having a crack at you, but in practice, how would it change what the board does?
and that include the fans who pay for the privilege of supporting the club.
Wests Ashfield are the stakeholders, fans are customers. Stark reality.
The Board members elected by the fans could actually add some professionalism to the Company which it is currently lacking. I would think those Board Members elected by the fans would have a professional background.
Explain to me how the board member elected by fans would not be Demps or Rob Bechara? That is the reality of this proposal.
In practice they can represent the fans at the Board level and add a different perspective to how the club is run and perceived. They can certainly point out what the club is doing right and not so good. At the moment the current Board is deaf… As many different viewpoints is a good thing.
No they wouldn’t be those type of fans.. One of them isn’t even a member. Would you vote for them?
Fans are stake holders, not just customers… If it wasn’t for the fans there would be no club.The fans should have representation at the board level, voted by the fans.
Why?
So that at the Board Level there is some accountability directly to all stakeholders,
How would a fan occupying one seat on the board contribute any accountibility in practical terms? Not having a crack at you, but in practice, how would it change what the board does?
and that include the fans who pay for the privilege of supporting the club.
Wests Ashfield are the stakeholders, fans are customers. Stark reality.
The Board members elected by the fans could actually add some professionalism to the Company which it is currently lacking. I would think those Board Members elected by the fans would have a professional background.
Explain to me how the board member elected by fans would not be Demps or Rob Bechara? That is the reality of this proposal.
This 100% not true and I can prove it. COVID.
If there were no fans the club would/could continue. This is because the fans are not the end users of the product. To be accurate the fans are not even the customers. Foxtel/Channel 9 are. The NRL needs 16/17 franchises to turn up and play each other so that they can flog it to Foxtel/9 in return for their billion dollar deals. The money the fans put in is miniscule.
OF COURSE its better if there are plenty of fans, but the stakeholders are Wests Ashfield and they are selling to NRL/Media.
In practice they can represent the fans at the Board level and add a different perspective to how the club is run and perceived. They can certainly point out what the club is doing right and not so good. At the moment the current Board is deaf… As many different viewpoints is a good thing.
It wouldnt even do that. If you/me/Steve/Garry/Joel/Rob Bechara was in that seat on the board, we could add our perspective of what the fans think, but it would still be just one fans perspective. The current board would be better off simply reading this forum and WTF to get a better and broader perspective of what the fans think. This forum or god forbid WTF would do a better job of what you are suggesting and it would be a complete waste of time.
What would you prefer? Steve/Garry/Jojel/Rob Bechara/pick your favourite fan sitting in board meetings telling the board what they coud read in the forum anyway, or a Gerry Harvey and the like?
No they wouldn’t be those type of fans.. One of them isn’t even a member. Would you vote for them?
you do know how popular elections work?
Debenture holders of Wests Ashfield control the entire Group and everything in it. Unless WA sell WT to private interests there is no way to influence actual decisions at WT unless you are the Chairman of WA and that position is voted on by the debenture holders. WA is a profitable and asset rich entity so I can’t see a good reason why they would every sell WT football club. We are stuck with what we have so let’s hope the WT board (that is WA majority members on that Board) make good decision with regard to WT Chairman, CEO and Head Coach.
@tigertownsfs yep it ultimately comes down to 20 people that bought their place.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
The way Rugby League clubs are currently organised fans are stakeholders. COVID was a special circumstance for everyone, not just Rugby League. The only thing that kept Rugby League & the club going was the TV rights, and the fans watching it, along with the reduced payments for players and venues etc that was agreed to. If any of those didn’t happen the game would have stopped. Rugby League clubs are different from normal businesses. Businesses can diversify product lines and have different markets. For Rugby League the game is the product, that’s it. The TV rights would also be dead without the fans. Fans of our club are stakeholders, period, and they deserve a voice.Fans are stake holders, not just customers… If it wasn’t for the fans there would be no club.The fans should have representation at the board level, voted by the fans.
Why?
So that at the Board Level there is some accountability directly to all stakeholders,
How would a fan occupying one seat on the board contribute any accountibility in practical terms? Not having a crack at you, but in practice, how would it change what the board does?
and that include the fans who pay for the privilege of supporting the club.
Wests Ashfield are the stakeholders, fans are customers. Stark reality.
The Board members elected by the fans could actually add some professionalism to the Company which it is currently lacking. I would think those Board Members elected by the fans would have a professional background.
Explain to me how the board member elected by fans would not be Demps or Rob Bechara? That is the reality of this proposal.
This 100% not true and I can prove it. COVID.
If there were no fans the club would/could continue. This is because the fans are not the end users of the product. To be accurate the fans are not even the customers. Foxtel/Channel 9 are. The NRL needs 16/17 franchises to turn up and play each other so that they can flog it to Foxtel/9 in return for their billion dollar deals. The money the fans put in is miniscule.
OF COURSE its better if there are plenty of fans, but the stakeholders are Wests Ashfield and they are selling to NRL/Media.
In practice they can represent the fans at the Board level and add a different perspective to how the club is run and perceived. They can certainly point out what the club is doing right and not so good. At the moment the current Board is deaf… As many different viewpoints is a good thing.
It wouldnt even do that. If you/me/Steve/Garry/Joel/Rob Bechara was in that seat on the board, we could add our perspective of what the fans think, but it would still be just one fans perspective. The current board would be better off simply reading this forum and WTF to get a better and broader perspective of what the fans think. This forum or god forbid WTF would do a better job of what you are suggesting and it would be a complete waste of time.
What would you prefer? Steve/Garry/Jojel/Rob Bechara/pick your favourite fan sitting in board meetings telling the board what they coud read in the forum anyway, or a Gerry Harvey and the like?
No they wouldn’t be those type of fans.. One of them isn’t even a member. Would you vote for them?
you do know how popular elections work?
Disagree entirely about having a fan voice on the Board. This would be a great improvement on having no voice and being completely ignored.
Yes I understand how popular elections work. There would be nothing wrong about putting criteria around what the capacity and ability of the candidates should be.
Clearly we disagree. No surprise there.
They haven’t so far. No reason to think they will make good decisions in the future.Debenture holders of Wests Ashfield control the entire Group and everything in it. Unless WA sell WT to private interests there is no way to influence actual decisions at WT unless you are the Chairman of WA and that position is voted on by the debenture holders. WA is a profitable and asset rich entity so I can’t see a good reason why they would every sell WT football club. We are stuck with what we have so let’s hope the WT board (that is WA majority members on that Board) make good decision with regard to WT Chairman, CEO and Head Coach.
The only thing that kept Rugby League & the club going was the TV rightsFans are stake holders, not just customers… If it wasn’t for the fans there would be no club.The fans should have representation at the board level, voted by the fans.
Why?
So that at the Board Level there is some accountability directly to all stakeholders,
How would a fan occupying one seat on the board contribute any accountibility in practical terms? Not having a crack at you, but in practice, how would it change what the board does?
and that include the fans who pay for the privilege of supporting the club.
Wests Ashfield are the stakeholders, fans are customers. Stark reality.
The Board members elected by the fans could actually add some professionalism to the Company which it is currently lacking. I would think those Board Members elected by the fans would have a professional background.
Explain to me how the board member elected by fans would not be Demps or Rob Bechara? That is the reality of this proposal.
This 100% not true and I can prove it. COVID.
If there were no fans the club would/could continue. This is because the fans are not the end users of the product. To be accurate the fans are not even the customers. Foxtel/Channel 9 are. The NRL needs 16/17 franchises to turn up and play each other so that they can flog it to Foxtel/9 in return for their billion dollar deals. The money the fans put in is miniscule.
OF COURSE its better if there are plenty of fans, but the stakeholders are Wests Ashfield and they are selling to NRL/Media.
In practice they can represent the fans at the Board level and add a different perspective to how the club is run and perceived. They can certainly point out what the club is doing right and not so good. At the moment the current Board is deaf… As many different viewpoints is a good thing.
It wouldnt even do that. If you/me/Steve/Garry/Joel/Rob Bechara was in that seat on the board, we could add our perspective of what the fans think, but it would still be just one fans perspective. The current board would be better off simply reading this forum and WTF to get a better and broader perspective of what the fans think. This forum or god forbid WTF would do a better job of what you are suggesting and it would be a complete waste of time.
What would you prefer? Steve/Garry/Jojel/Rob Bechara/pick your favourite fan sitting in board meetings telling the board what they coud read in the forum anyway, or a Gerry Harvey and the like?
No they wouldn’t be those type of fans.. One of them isn’t even a member. Would you vote for them?
you do know how popular elections work?
The only think keeping Rugby league and the club going at all is TV rights, period. Its everything.
Clearly we disagree. No surprise there.
Nice Mike.
And what feeds the TV Rights? The fans viewing (ratings). No fans, no ratings, no TV rights. Disenfranchise the fans and the club is gone.The only thing that kept Rugby League & the club going was the TV rightsFans are stake holders, not just customers… If it wasn’t for the fans there would be no club.The fans should have representation at the board level, voted by the fans.
Why?
So that at the Board Level there is some accountability directly to all stakeholders,
How would a fan occupying one seat on the board contribute any accountibility in practical terms? Not having a crack at you, but in practice, how would it change what the board does?
and that include the fans who pay for the privilege of supporting the club.
Wests Ashfield are the stakeholders, fans are customers. Stark reality.
The Board members elected by the fans could actually add some professionalism to the Company which it is currently lacking. I would think those Board Members elected by the fans would have a professional background.
Explain to me how the board member elected by fans would not be Demps or Rob Bechara? That is the reality of this proposal.
This 100% not true and I can prove it. COVID.
If there were no fans the club would/could continue. This is because the fans are not the end users of the product. To be accurate the fans are not even the customers. Foxtel/Channel 9 are. The NRL needs 16/17 franchises to turn up and play each other so that they can flog it to Foxtel/9 in return for their billion dollar deals. The money the fans put in is miniscule.
OF COURSE its better if there are plenty of fans, but the stakeholders are Wests Ashfield and they are selling to NRL/Media.
In practice they can represent the fans at the Board level and add a different perspective to how the club is run and perceived. They can certainly point out what the club is doing right and not so good. At the moment the current Board is deaf… As many different viewpoints is a good thing.
It wouldnt even do that. If you/me/Steve/Garry/Joel/Rob Bechara was in that seat on the board, we could add our perspective of what the fans think, but it would still be just one fans perspective. The current board would be better off simply reading this forum and WTF to get a better and broader perspective of what the fans think. This forum or god forbid WTF would do a better job of what you are suggesting and it would be a complete waste of time.
What would you prefer? Steve/Garry/Jojel/Rob Bechara/pick your favourite fan sitting in board meetings telling the board what they coud read in the forum anyway, or a Gerry Harvey and the like?
No they wouldn’t be those type of fans.. One of them isn’t even a member. Would you vote for them?
you do know how popular elections work?
The only think keeping Rugby league and the club going at all is TV rights, period. Its everything.
Clearly we disagree. No surprise there.
Nice Mike.
Sorry I forgot to say. Good article.An article I have written about how things have changed over the years (maybe not for the better).
https://weststigerspodcast.com.au/democracy-lost-wests-tigers-fans-now-have-no-say/
I think you’ve made some excellent points but just a question, could the Board be extended to 8 members to include a representative of the members do it isn’t diluted? And could there be a way of selecting nominations for that position that would prevent the more fanatical type from the process? I’m not sure I put that how I wanted but I’m bloody tired.Personally, I am firmly of the opinion that fans should have zero involvement in the running of a professional sports team/club/franchise. Because we love the club does not make us any more qualified to have input or make decisions. A reminder that Balmain and Wests we both "members run" which ran both clubs into the ground to the point where they had to merge and sacrifice their identity to survive.
The argument that by some means "fans/members" should be able to remove board members by some mechanism is also IMO a poor one. A board needs security of tenure so that it has the authority and confidence to make tough, hard or unpopular opinions for the good of the club without worrying that by doing something unpopular (which might be the right thing to do) that a fan uprising will cull them and strike down the decision making role of the board. I have seen fan forums overrun but little populist uprisings let alone unleashing that level of unprofessionalism on the club. Parra & Bulldogs, although seemingly stable now had fan led turmoil for years with factions wrecking their boards.
Finally IMO a "token" position on a board representing fans, simply dilutes the board in that that postion has no power.
TLDR, I think fans should be kept as far as possible from running the club.
I think you’ve made some excellent points but just a question, could the Board be extended to 8 members to include a representative of the members do it isn’t diluted? And could there be a way of selecting nominations for that position that would prevent the more fanatical type from the process? I’m not sure I put that how I wanted but I’m bloody tired.Personally, I am firmly of the opinion that fans should have zero involvement in the running of a professional sports team/club/franchise. Because we love the club does not make us any more qualified to have input or make decisions. A reminder that Balmain and Wests we both "members run" which ran both clubs into the ground to the point where they had to merge and sacrifice their identity to survive.
The argument that by some means "fans/members" should be able to remove board members by some mechanism is also IMO a poor one. A board needs security of tenure so that it has the authority and confidence to make tough, hard or unpopular opinions for the good of the club without worrying that by doing something unpopular (which might be the right thing to do) that a fan uprising will cull them and strike down the decision making role of the board. I have seen fan forums overrun but little populist uprisings let alone unleashing that level of unprofessionalism on the club. Parra & Bulldogs, although seemingly stable now had fan led turmoil for years with factions wrecking their boards.
Finally IMO a "token" position on a board representing fans, simply dilutes the board in that that postion has no power.
TLDR, I think fans should be kept as far as possible from running the club.
Mate Ive probably ranted about this too much but here we go.
By increasing the number of seats on the board you by definition dilute it and that one seat is even less important. It is entirely pointless and powerless because it is not backed by any power or money nor is it part of a voting block on the board. It is also depriving a position that could be held by someone seleceted for their particular skill be it business/marketing/finance.
If there is a way of "selecting nominations" for that position, then it isnt a popularly elected position and is really an even more token position, basically a plant virtue signalling to the fans.
I dont see how a "fan" seat on the board to express the fans POV could provide more information to the board than they could glean from just reading this forum and WTF. They would get more information from these two forums because it is a wider subset of fans opinions.
A "fan controlled" board appointed Alan Jones as coach of Balmain, a "fan controlled" board sacked Gary Freeman for Brian Smith, a "fan controlled" board drove Balmain and Wests into the ground to the point they had to sacrifice their identity. Just saying.
I get all that and difficult to argue your points which is, of course, fine. But it’s not so much about powering the fanbase but maybe it’s more about clarity, just having a clearer understanding of the processes and decision making. I’m not one of those supporters who cares all that much about what goes on as I have very little knowledge of it. And I’m not all that unhappy about it. But I can understand there are other supporters like Joel & Mike who do care so I try to see it from their point of view as well. But I think you’ve got a much better understanding than me and I’ve enjoyed reading your replies.I think you’ve made some excellent points but just a question, could the Board be extended to 8 members to include a representative of the members do it isn’t diluted? And could there be a way of selecting nominations for that position that would prevent the more fanatical type from the process? I’m not sure I put that how I wanted but I’m bloody tired.Personally, I am firmly of the opinion that fans should have zero involvement in the running of a professional sports team/club/franchise. Because we love the club does not make us any more qualified to have input or make decisions. A reminder that Balmain and Wests we both "members run" which ran both clubs into the ground to the point where they had to merge and sacrifice their identity to survive.
The argument that by some means "fans/members" should be able to remove board members by some mechanism is also IMO a poor one. A board needs security of tenure so that it has the authority and confidence to make tough, hard or unpopular opinions for the good of the club without worrying that by doing something unpopular (which might be the right thing to do) that a fan uprising will cull them and strike down the decision making role of the board. I have seen fan forums overrun but little populist uprisings let alone unleashing that level of unprofessionalism on the club. Parra & Bulldogs, although seemingly stable now had fan led turmoil for years with factions wrecking their boards.
Finally IMO a "token" position on a board representing fans, simply dilutes the board in that that postion has no power.
TLDR, I think fans should be kept as far as possible from running the club.
Mate Ive probably ranted about this too much but here we go.
By increasing the number of seats on the board you by definition dilute it and that one seat is even less important. It is entirely pointless and powerless because it is not backed by any power or money nor is it part of a voting block on the board. It is also depriving a position that could be held by someone seleceted for their particular skill be it business/marketing/finance.
If there is a way of "selecting nominations" for that position, then it isnt a popularly elected position and is really an even more token position, basically a plant virtue signalling to the fans.
I dont see how a "fan" seat on the board to express the fans POV could provide more information to the board than they could glean from just reading this forum and WTF. They would get more information from these two forums because it is a wider subset of fans opinions.
A "fan controlled" board appointed Alan Jones as coach of Balmain, a "fan controlled" board sacked Gary Freeman for Brian Smith, a "fan controlled" board drove Balmain and Wests into the ground to the point they had to sacrifice their identity. Just saying.
