Pascoe should not have survived the Farah episode let alone be given another chance to prove himself. It’s like we have a co-dependent relationship with this turkey.
don’t worry he’s super laid back and not worried about an criticism. It’s like water off a ducks back.
Pascoe should not have survived the Farah episode let alone be given another chance to prove himself. It’s like we have a co-dependent relationship with this turkey.
don’t worry he’s super laid back and not worried about an criticism. It’s like water off a ducks back.
Well, why worry when your priority is to look after yourself? As long as you know you get a bit fat severance if the rug is pulled out then what’s the point of aiming high?
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
Honestly, I can see the logic of keeping Pascoe on if making big changes to the board. Corporate memory is important in an organisation and if you change the majority of the board and CEO at the same time you lose that.
I can’t think of a single reason to retain Pascoe. The guy has zero redeemable qualities as a leader. He’s done a terrible job and will continue to do so as long as he’s employed by the club. Him and Lee should be the first ones gone. He is completely hopeless and incompetent
Evaluating job performance should be weighted in terms importance. As a football club, on field success is the key metric and should carry the most importance
Marketing (sponsorship), Finance, memberships should be underweighted. The business is underpinned by a massive TV rights deal and a leagues club. Any semi-competent executive can make this work.
I'd further argue that on-field success makes marketing, finance and memberships even easier.
The Tigers have failed on the field. I would rate their on-field success a 1 out of 10 while Pascoe has being CEO, given a pass mark would be to at least make the finals 50% of the time he has been CEO.
The reasons outlined by Chammas are ridiculous and shouldn't even be a consideration.
For the on-field performance and on-field performance alone, he should be sacked. Simple as that.
Evaluating job performance should be weighted in terms importance. As a football club, on field success is the key metric and should carry the most importance
Marketing (sponsorship), Finance, memberships should be underweighted. The business is underpinned by a massive TV rights deal and a leagues club. Any semi-competent executive can make this work.
I'd further argue that on-field success makes marketing, finance and memberships even easier.
The Tigers have failed on the field. I would rate their on-field success a 1 out of 10 while Pascoe has being CEO, given a pass mark would be to at least make the finals 50% of the time he has been CEO.
The reasons outlined by Chammas are ridiculous and shouldn't even be a consideration.
For the on-field performance and on-field performance alone, he should be sacked. Simple as that.
Absolutely spot on.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
I'm not saying for one second that he doesn't deserve to be sacked, he's performance is inexcusable. But if we are in a situation where we are replacing the entire board, then I can understand keeping him in the role for 12 months to keep some form.of corporate memory and smooth out the transition.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
The other option and my preferred option would be to stagger the replacement of board members over the next 12 months.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
You are right but in this instance I’d be happy to lose the Corporate memory. We haven’t been that great a club from inception. Membership dept is broken, Comms dept is broken, Football dept is broken, Recruitment is broken and so on. I’d be more than glad to start a new.Honestly, I can see the logic of keeping Pascoe on if making big changes to the board. Corporate memory is important in an organisation and if you change the majority of the board and CEO at the same time you lose that.
I would judge their decision-making as being on par with a blindfolded monkey throwing darts.
If Benji proves to be a good coach, it be by complete and utter luck as there was absolutely no evidence to suggest he knew what he was doing.
Don't get me wrong, luck has a lot to do with this, especially in sports. However, in a sport which is governed by a salary cap, to not make the finals in 10 years isn't just because of bad luck, it is incompetence.
The CEO should be first cab off the rank. Second should be rotating the board members..
You are right but in this instance I’d be happy to lose the Corporate memory. We haven’t been that great a club from inception. Membership dept is broken, Comms dept is broken, Football dept is broken, Recruitment is broken and so on. I’d be more than glad to start a new.Honestly, I can see the logic of keeping Pascoe on if making big changes to the board. Corporate memory is important in an rganisation and if you change the majority of the board and CEO at the same time you lose th
Yeah I'm not saying that I disagree with that. Can just see and understand the reasoning if they decided to keep him in the role.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
Wests Tigers could be forced to find a new major sponsor if the independent review of the club leads to the removal of chairman Lee Hagipantelis from the board.
The review was commissioned by the Holman Barnes Group, the controlling faction on the Tigers board, in response to a petition from about 2000 disgruntled supporters. The review is ongoing and there is no set date for the findings to be announced or implemented, but an update was given to the Holman Barnes Group at a scheduled board meeting on Tuesday night.
This masthead revealed that one of the likely recommendations is for the directors who commissioned the report to step back. Any requirement to refresh the board may also claim Hagipantelis, one of three independent directors.
There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Hagipantelis or any other director.
As well as being the Tigers chairman, Hagipantelis is also the club’s major sponsor via his legal firm Brydens Lawyers. Brydens pays about $1 million a season to feature on the front of the Tigers jersey and the contract ends after the 2024 season.
Sources speaking on the condition of anonymity, given the report is not yet released, said there were concerns Brydens will not renew the deal if Hagipantelis is no longer the chairman or a director. The club would then have to go to market for a seven-figure backer after earning consecutive wooden spoons.
Tigers chairman Lee Hagipantelis.CREDIT:GETTY
Hagipantelis declined to comment when contacted by this masthead.
The Tigers have made a play for the two biggest names on the open market, Jarome Luai and Addin Fonua-Blake.
The Tigers have tabled a four-year, $4.5 million contract for Luai, as well as offering him the chance to be the club’s chief playmaker. Canterbury are also a potential suitor, after News Corp reported that general manager of football, Phil Gould, met with the NSW playmaker on Wednesday.
Gould has made no secret of his desire to lure Fonua-Blake and was photographed in a meeting with the Warriors prop and his manager last week.
Jarome Luai is in demand.CREDIT:RHETT WYMAN
The Tigers believe they have the salary cap space to accommodate Luai and Fonua-Blake without having to shift players, although contracted prop David Klemmer has been given permission to explore his options should a rival be interested.
Dragons coach Shane Flanagan has expressed interest in “AFB”, a pursuit backed by Red V front-rower Blake Lawrie.
“[After] the year that he’s had at the Warriors, he is a guaranteed top-three prop in the comp, if not number one,” Lawrie said last week.
“I don’t really want to comment too much because that’s Flanno’s [coach Shane Flanagan’s role] with recruitment, but to play alongside him it would make everyone’s job a lot easier because of the presence that he has and the sort of player he is.
“He’s a world-class player and he demands respect.”
There have also been attempts to broker a player swap between Tigers forward Shaun Blore and Melbourne centre Justin Olam, but the parties have been unable to come to terms.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
@garry if a condition of Lee’s sponsor is a seat on the board, it just proves he shouldn’t be on the board.
footnote: I’m sure any such condition exist solely In Lee’s imagination
If it meant another wooden spoon season to be rid of Chairman Mouth (Lee H) then it's ok by me.
Haha I wonder where this was leaked from.
