Serious questions are being raised about the leadership of Tennis West following the reported decision to dismantle a number of member working groups that were established to provide advice, feedback and practical support to the organisation.

Under the leadership of President Pam Cresswell and the current Tennis West Board, these working groups were promoted as a way for clubs, volunteers and experienced members of the tennis community to contribute to the direction of the sport.

However, when members began asking difficult questions, challenging decisions and demanding greater accountability from Tennis West, the response appears not to have been meaningful engagement—but the removal of the groups themselves.

This raises an obvious question: were these working groups created to provide genuine advice, or were they only expected to endorse decisions already made by the Board and administration?

Working groups should never be treated as public-relations exercises. Their purpose is to bring together people with knowledge, experience and direct connections to clubs and participants. Members should be encouraged to identify problems, question strategy and propose improvements.

Constructive criticism is not disloyalty. It is an essential part of good governance.

When an organisation dismantles advisory groups after receiving feedback it does not like, it risks sending a damaging message across the tennis community: participation is welcome only when it is compliant.

That is not consultation. It is control.

Clubs Deserve a Genuine Voice

Tennis West exists to serve tennis throughout Western Australia. It does not own the sport, and its leadership should not operate as though clubs, coaches, volunteers and members are simply stakeholders to be managed from a distance.

Clubs are the foundation of tennis.

They recruit players, organise competitions, maintain facilities, develop juniors, support coaches and create the communities that keep the sport alive. Without strong and engaged clubs, there is no meaningful pathway for tennis in Western Australia.

Yet many within the tennis community increasingly feel that decisions are being centralised, information is being restricted and consultation is becoming more selective.

The dismantling of working groups will only reinforce those concerns.

Rather than removing these forums, Tennis West should be strengthening them. It should be publishing their terms of reference, acknowledging their recommendations and clearly explaining which proposals have been accepted, rejected or deferred.

If recommendations are rejected, the Board should provide reasons.

That is what transparent leadership looks like.

Leadership Must Welcome Scrutiny

Strong leaders do not fear criticism. They listen to it, assess it and respond with evidence.

They do not remove the forum simply because the conversation has become uncomfortable.

Pam Cresswell and the Tennis West Board must explain why the working groups have reportedly been dismantled, what feedback was received from their members and whether criticism of Tennis West’s leadership or strategic direction influenced the decision.

The tennis community is entitled to know:

Why were the working groups disbanded?

Were members consulted before the decision was made?

What recommendations had the groups submitted?

Which recommendations were considered critical of the Board or administration?

Will the reports, minutes and recommendations of the groups be made available to affiliated clubs?

What replacement structure, if any, will provide clubs with an independent and meaningful voice?

These are reasonable questions that deserve direct answers.

A Pattern of Reduced Engagement

This decision should not be viewed in isolation.

It contributes to a growing perception that the current Tennis West leadership is seeking to control the flow of information, limit scrutiny and reduce opportunities for clubs and members to influence decision-making.

A governing body should not surround itself only with people who agree with it. Healthy organisations deliberately seek out different perspectives because challenge exposes weaknesses before they become larger problems.

Silencing criticism does not remove the underlying issues.

It merely removes the opportunity to address them.

When respected volunteers give their time to participate in a working group, they do so because they care about the future of tennis. Their contribution should be respected—even when their conclusions are inconvenient for those in leadership positions.

Removing these groups risks alienating the very people Tennis West should be working hardest to engage.

It may also discourage others from volunteering in the future. Why would experienced club representatives commit their time and expertise if their input can be disregarded, or the entire group dissolved, when they raise legitimate concerns?

Tennis West Must Belong to the Tennis Community

Tennis West is not the personal domain of its President, directors or senior management.

It is a member-based sporting organisation with responsibilities to clubs and the wider Western Australian tennis community.

Its decision-making must therefore be open, accountable and genuinely consultative.

If the current Board believes the working groups were ineffective, it should explain why and provide evidence. If the structure needed improvement, it should have worked collaboratively with members to reform it.

But dismantling working groups because their members were critical—or because they demanded greater accountability—would represent a serious failure of leadership and governance.

Tennis West needs more engagement, not less.

It needs more transparency, not tighter control.

It needs leaders who are prepared to listen, especially when the feedback is difficult to hear.

The clubs and members of Western Australian tennis deserve a seat at the table. They should not be invited into the room only to discover that their views are welcome when they agree with the Board—and expendable when they do not.

Pam Cresswell and the Tennis West Board should immediately provide a full explanation to all affiliated clubs and publish the feedback and recommendations produced by the working groups.

Until that occurs, the tennis community is entitled to question whether these groups were established to create genuine participation—or merely the appearance of it.

Rod Van’s time on the Tennis West Board has officially ended, closing a contentious chapter in Western Australian tennis.

Van served as Tennis West President during the controversial termination of former chief executive Brett Patten in August 2023. The decision followed a Tennis Australia Integrity Unit investigation, although Tennis West subsequently acknowledged that Patten’s role in the investigated matter fell short of the evidence threshold required to establish a policy breach.

The dispute triggered legal action, boardroom division and sustained concern about Tennis West’s governance. Van was removed as President in December 2023 and remained a director until November 2024, according to the organisation’s 2024–25 annual report.

An independent governance review later recommended reform across four areas: refreshing the Board, rebuilding respectful relationships, developing sustainable independence and meeting recognised sports-governance standards. Tennis West accepted all 13 recommendations.

Van’s departure should now mark more than a change of personnel. It should create an opportunity for transparency, reconciliation and renewed confidence among WA’s clubs, volunteers, players and government stakeholders.

The lasting question is not who won the boardroom battle. It is whether Tennis West has learned enough to prevent another one.

Have WA tennis clubs regained confidence in Tennis West? Join the Court Talk conversation. ]]> https://courttalk.com.au/rod-vans-tennis-west-tenure-ends-after-period-of-governance-turmoil/feed/ 0 https://courttalk.com.au/pam-cresswells-tennis-west-are-clubs-partners-or-revenue-sources/ https://courttalk.com.au/pam-cresswells-tennis-west-are-clubs-partners-or-revenue-sources/#respond Fri, 24 Jul 2026 03:33:04 +0000 https://courttalk.com.au/?p=751 Tennis West President Pam Cresswell and her Board face a fundamental question: does the organisation’s affiliation fee structure genuinely encourage clubs to grow tennis?

For 2025–26, Tennis West charges metropolitan clubs $333 plus GST for every court, while country clubs pay lower per-court rates. The model measures a club’s physical footprint, not its membership, participation growth or financial capacity.

That creates a potential imbalance. A club with several courts but a modest or declining membership can face a substantial affiliation bill, while receiving no direct financial reward for attracting new players.

There was another path available.

Tennis West could have developed a shared-growth model under which clubs and the governing body succeeded together. As clubs attracted more members, delivered stronger programs and increased participation, Tennis West’s revenue could also grow. Such a structure would give both parties a common commercial objective: more people playing tennis.

Tennis West says its staff are dedicated to helping clubs increase participation, maximise court use and grow player registrations. Yet its published fee structure remains tied to courts rather than those outcomes.

The issue is bigger than the price of affiliation. It is about whether Tennis West sees clubs as organisations to be charged or partners to be developed.

Under Pam Cresswell’s presidency, Tennis West has spoken about collaboration and rebuilding stakeholder relationships. Clubs are entitled to ask whether the affiliation model reflects those promises.

Is charging clubs according to the number of courts really the best way to grow tennis in Western Australia?